Pulling Back The Curtain On An Unhealthy Alliance

On Monday, The Epoch Times reported that a watchdog group called “Open the Books” had discovered that an estimated $350 million in undisclosed royalties were paid to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and hundreds of its scientists, including the agency’s recently departed director, Dr. Francis Collins, and Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The article reports:

The first five years, from 2010 to 2014, constitute 40 percent of the total, he said.

“We now know that there are 1,675 scientists that received payments during that period, at least one payment. In fiscal year 2014, for instance, $36 million was paid out and that is on average $21,100 per scientist,” Andrzejewski said.

“We also find that during this period, leadership at NIH was involved in receiving third-party payments. For instance, Francis Collins, the immediate past director of NIH, received 14 payments. Dr. Anthony Fauci received 23 payments and his deputy, Clifford Lane, received eight payments.”

Collins resigned as NIH director in December 2021 after 12 years 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.

The top five NIH employees measured in terms of the number of royalty payments that they received while on the government payroll, according to a fact sheet published by Open the Books, include Robert Gallo, National Cancer Institute, 271 payments; Ira Pastan, National Cancer Institute, 250 payments; Mikulas Popovic, National Cancer Institute, 191 payments; Flossie Wong-Staal, National Cancer Institute, 190 payments; and Mangalasseril Sarngadharan, National Cancer Institute, 188 payments.

Only Pastan continues to be employed by NIH, according to Open the Books.

The article concludes:

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.

The nonprofit filed a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit seeking documentation of all payments by outside firms to NIH and/or current and former NIH employees.

NIH declined to respond to the FOIA, so Open the Books is taking the agency to court, suing it for noncompliance with the FOIA. Open the Books is represented in federal court in the case by another nonprofit government watchdog, Judicial Watch.

It is not news to anyone that many of the Covid guidelines coming from the National Institute of Health had a very tenuous relationship to science. It would be a good idea to follow the money and see if that money can be cut off as a means of influence.

Do The Fact-Checkers Actually Check The Facts?

On Sunday, Forbes posted an article about fact checkers. The article specifically focuses on the fact-checkers who ‘check facts’ in the areas of Covid-19 and climate change, two of the more controversial topics of the day.

On the subject of Covid-19, the article notes:

Over two years into the pandemic, some of the most basic questions remain contentious, and even questions of data integrity remain mired in controversy. Are covid deaths over-reported since many may have died with covid rather than of covid? Did lockdowns and masks make any discernible difference to public health? Are there viable early treatments for the disease available or are vaccines approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the only way to go? Are covid vaccines safe and effective? To each of these questions, the overwhelming majority of the fact checking sites (or fact checking departments of the legacy media) support the reigning narrative articulated by big pharmaceutical companies, government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FDA, and key government officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci. The Biden administration welcomes this, and goes further in calling social media companies such as Facebook to partner with the White House to “fight misinformation” about covid-19.

When three distinguished medical people released the Great Barrington Declaration which contradicted the administration’s policies, their ideas were immediately squelched without debate. That’s not how science is supposed to work.

The article also discusses the climate-change fact-checkers:

Like the media coverage of covid-19, climate change headlines in the mainstream media for the past three decades have been overwhelmingly one-sided. The basic premise is that the “science is settled” as in a tweet by then U.S. President Barack Obama in 2013: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” with the obvious subtext: “Who are you to challenge this?” And, as in the covid-19 context, the marginalization of climate sceptics has a long track record.

Two examples suffice how fact checks and editorializing serve to ensure that sceptics need not apply for access to the wider public. The first relates to the London-based BBC, fondly known as “beebs”, for its authoritative news broadcasts around the world as it emerged from the ashes of World War II. The British media giant was known and praised not only for its balanced news features but also for its nature documentaries. And in this space, two celebrities with the same first name – David Bellamy and David Attenborough – emerged in the 1970s, directing fascinating TV programs on nature and the environment from every corner of the globe into tens of millions of homes. As British commentator James Dellingpole wrote in his eulogy to Bellamy who died in 2019, “both were superstars…both were well on their way to becoming national treasures.”

Yet, while one, Attenborough, basks in the glow of international fame and is invited to many of the climate conferences as star speaker and delegate, the other claimed he had become a pariah as soon as he rejected group-think on global warming – describing climate change as “poppycock”. Though his climate scepticism killed his media career he remained utterly unrepentant. The BBC itself has made it clear to its staff that it will not invite climate sceptics to its interviews and panel discussions to balance debates because the “science is settled”

The article concludes:

Without getting into details about the claims of the so-called factchecker, the key point here is to note the perversions of truth in representing the arguments critiqued in such “fact checks”. Perhaps this is best revealed by the fact that Facebook argued in its legal defence that its cited fact check was “just opinion” when faced by a lawsuit brought by celebrated journalist John Stossel who had posted two climate change videos.

Readers and viewers beware of this peculiar twist to the caveat emptor clause: the “fact checks” used by the mainstream news outlets and social media to police what you read and watch are just opinions.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We are being played.

Masking Our Children

On Monday, The New York Post posted an article by Dr. Joel Zinberg, MD, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and director of public health and wellness at the Paragon Health Institute. The article deals with the benefits and costs of masking children.

The article reports:

States around the nation, including Democratic ones such as New York and California, are lifting indoor mask mandates. But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention refuses to budge. It continues to recommend indoor masking in communities with substantial or high transmission — essentially the entire country — a stance that is particularly exasperating and harmful in regards to schools. The agency recommends masking all students ages 2 and older.

…Two days later, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief White House medical adviser, echoed his overcautious colleague, telling CNN that ending school masking would be “risky.”

Yet, whatever rationales were previously advanced to justify school mask mandates have long since disappeared and the benefit of masking children is outweighed by the cost.

It has been known almost since the beginning of the epidemic that children were not at high risk from the coronavirus. There was no reason to mask them in the first place (particularly since the mask does not keep the virus out and children have a tendency to touch the mask).

The article continues:

Other studies primarily done before vaccine approval confirm that students are not causing transmission in schools. Staff-to-staff transmission is more common than transmission from students. The correlation between school outbreaks and COVID incidence in the community suggests that adults infected in the community pose a far greater risk to students and staff than students do.

It is no surprise that the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control recommends against masks for children 12 and younger. It only recommends masks for older students and adults living in areas with high COVID community transmission.

Walensky (CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky) has repeatedly cited an Arizona study that found schools without mask mandates were 3.5 times more likely to have COVID outbreaks than schools that required masks. Yet, as David Zweig showed in the Atlantic, multiple experts agree the study was so rife with methodological problems that its conclusions are worthless.

The article concludes:

Masks always have been unrealistic for schoolkids. As the European Centre noted, children “may have a lower tolerance to wearing masks for extended periods of time, and may fail to wear them properly.”

Moreover, masks may interfere with children’s ability to recognize and interact with their peers and teachers and could stunt their development. Mask proponents often cite a study showing that children have no more difficulty reading the emotions of people wearing masks than people wearing sunglasses. But that study found children’s ability to infer emotions were more accurate with uncovered faces compared to covering with masks or sunglasses.

Besides, when do children encounter an environment where everyone is wearing sunglasses?

Earlier in the pandemic, masks may have facilitated a return to in-person learning. But now there is widespread vaccine immunity and natural immunity after recovery, particularly with the highly transmissible Omicron variant. New monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals significantly reduce the risk of severe COVID illness. And case numbers are rapidly falling. These developments, combined with the dubious evidence supporting school mask mandates, mean that the time has come for the CDC to change its guidelines.

It will take years to assess the damage masks and at-home learning have done to our children.

 

When The Cover-Up Unravels

On Saturday, American Greatness posted an article about the information labeled ‘misinformation’ at the beginning of the Covid crisis that has turned out to be true.

The article reports:

Tellingly, the demands to censor Joe Rogan rarely identify the supposed “misinformation” he peddled. Even more tellingly, the censors totally fail to acknowledge that Rogan-promoted “conspiracy theories” have a better track record than many of the articles of faith his critics promoted.

Let’s start at the beginning. In March 2020, at the start of the pandemic, a “conspiracy theory” emerged suggesting that the dread COVID-19 virus actually escaped from the Wuhan virology lab that studied coronaviruses. Vox warned

With more and more people searching online for information about the coronavirus outbreak, they can easily encounter a barrage of misleading and potentially dangerous information. And the WHO, which has also released its own ‘myth-busting’ resources, is warning that misinformation about the novel coronavirus has caused harmful stigmatization and discrimination. In the US, for instance, there is a growing number of reports about misinformation fueling racism against Asian Americans.

Facebook and other social media then censored posts that suggested the virus originated in the Wuhan lab.

As Rogan recently noted, Newsweek and several other outlets later reported, “the pileup of circumstantial evidence pointing to the Wuhan lab kept growing—until it became too substantial to ignore,”

The article concludes:

Joe Rogan and Spotify aren’t in trouble for disseminating false information. They’re in trouble for embarrassing the media and government officials who themselves have pushed false information and bad policy. That’s why the powers that be are resorting to censorship instead of rebuttal. It’s easy to understand their panic. As I wrote in 2020, “If social media wants to play doctor, they should prepare to be sued for malpractice.” 

Hundreds of thousands of Americans died from COVID, some of whom might have lived if social media hadn’t blocked legitimate information about therapeutics. When COVID finally abates, they will no longer be able to justify censorship to “protect” public health. Let the lawsuits begin.

Meanwhile, a very short article appeared at One America News on Monday. The article reported:

MRNA technology inventor Dr. Robert Malone is questioning suspicious behavior by Dr. Anthony Fauci and other top health care officials ahead of the coronavirus outbreak.

In a recent interview, Dr. Malone cited a report by the Epoch Times, which found Fauci and his colleagues had secret meetings in late 2019. They also reportedly had extensive conversations using burner phones at the time.

Interesting.

Disconcerting At Best

On Tuesday, Trending Politics posted an article about a statement from Dr. Fauci about vaccines that is far from comforting.

This is the statement:

“This would not be the first time, if it happened, that a vaccine that looked good in initial safety actually made people worse,” Fauci said. “There was the history of the Respiratory Syncitial Virus vaccine in children, which paradoxically made the children worse.”

The article continues:

“In the late 1960s, children in Washington, DC received an RSV vaccine in which the virus was inactivated with formalin,” Reuters reported. “Eighty percent of the children given the shot were hospitalized with severe respiratory disease, and two died. Many scientists had thought the formalin was responsible for the vaccine’s problems, but the chemical has been used safely in other vaccines.”

“The problem, they report this month in the journal Nature Medicine, was that the children’s antibodies were not binding strongly enough to the inactivated virus to produce a protective immune response,” the report noted. “Instead, the antibodies were dragging the dead virus with them, triggering a massive attack by other arms of the immune system.”

It should be noted that in 2019, the NIH admitted that “we are still lacking a safe and effective RSV vaccine.” But it somehow developed a “safe and effective” Covid-19 vaccine in a matter of months?

As noted before, the American public has no way of knowing if the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was rigorously tested, because the FDA refuses to fully release the documents for 75 years. A “whistleblower” on the inside of Pfizer’s clinical trials has documented many alleged serious issues, including “falsifying data.”

The phenomenon that Dr. Fauci is alluding to, “leaky vaccines,” has been well-documented. A Penn State University study showed that “leaky” vaccines can cause viruses to become lethal for the unvaccinated.

“Not all vaccines prevent infection,” PSU noted. “Some, known as leaky vaccines, prolong host survival or reduce disease symptoms without preventing viral replication and transmission. Although leaky vaccines provide anti-disease benefits to vaccinated individuals, new research by CIDD’s Andrew Read, David Kennedy and colleagues at the Avian Oncogenic Virus Group in the United Kingdom, and The University of New England in Australia, has demonstrated that leaky vaccines can make the situation for unvaccinated individuals worse.”

How in the world can anyone justify a vaccine mandate if they are aware of the problems with the vaccine?

In July 2021, Deseret News posted the following:

Israel — the poster child for COVID-19 vaccination and the first country to reach herd immunity — has seen a recent rise in cases. Recently, most of the people testing positive are vaccinated, reported The Washington Post.

The trend has brought a slew of questions about the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and the implications of new strains for future outbreaks. While these trends initially seem like cause for vaccine skepticism, a closer look at Israel’s current outbreaks shows that vaccines are effective and working — even against the delta variant.

No. If people are getting sick, the vaccines are NOT working. People may be getting less sick, but if they are still getting sick and still spreading the virus, maybe the vaccine is not working as well as it should.

The article also includes the following:

The people who are not testing positive in the current outbreak are those who have had COVID-19 previously and recovered. These people account for 9% of Israel’s population but less than 1% of recent infections, according to Kovler’s analysis. This has brought new questions about whether natural infections are more protective against the delta variant than vaccinations — but the answer is not yet certain.

Yet, America does not consider natural immunity in its vaccine mandates. Europe does.

The Truth Eventually Comes Out

The American Thinker posted an article today about recent revelations concerning Dr. Fauci and his relationship to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The article reports:

Perhaps, at long last, the deadly reign of Anthony Fauci will come to an end. That’s because The Intercept, a hard-left publication, has revealed 900 pages of government documents definitively proving that Fauci used his position to fund gain-of-function research into bat viruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (“WIV”)—and then lied to Congress about it.

Since February 2020, the wizened Fauci has been the face of the government’s response to the pandemic. In the ensuing 20 months, Fauci was frequently wrong, incredibly arrogant, and deeply dishonest. Because he was the anti-Trump, though, we were stuck with him. Democrats, especially, appreciated how he dismissed treating COVID with time-tested and affordable medicines such as Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin and, instead, insisted on masks, lockdowns, and mandated vaccines.

In July, during a Senate Health Committee hearing, Sen. Rand Paul (R. KY) directly accused Fauci of using his position to fund illegal gain-of-function research at the WIV. The Hill, which reported on the hearing, assured its readers that Paul was making “an unsubstantiated accusation.”

Fauci came out swinging in response to Sen. Paul’s accusation. “Senator Paul,” he said, “you do not know what you are talking about.” He also said, “If anybody is lying here, Senator, it is you.”

The article explains what happened at the Intercept after the Congressional hearing mentioned above:

The Intercept aggressively attacked Sen. Paul after the hearing. Glenn Greenwald, who founded The Intercept and then got the boot for being insufficiently totalitarian, posits that it was then that the outlet sought to bolster its attack on Rand Paul by filing a FOIA request against the National Institutes of Health.

What happened, instead, was that The Intercept received over 900 pages of documents showing that it was Fauci who lied. Richard E. Ebright, a Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers, summarized what those documents revealed:

The article includes a number of screenshots of tweets about the documents.

This is one of the tweets:

The article concludes:

Last year revealed to Americans that our most lauded experts are idiots and, in the case of Fauci and Collins, highly culpable, dishonest idiots. Everything they told us has been proven wrong, from COVID’s origins, to the lockdowns and masks, to the attacks on affordable early treatments, to the vaccines’ safety and efficacy.

We’ve also learned that all Democrats and some Republicans who have political or administrative power will abuse it. Democrats also weaponized COVID to corrupt our elections and saddle us with a corrupt, senile president who has opened America’s borders, destroyed her economy, creating a glide path for Islamic extremists to come here, degraded America’s standing in the world, handed power to the Chinese, and, in all probability, will give a nuclear pass to Iran.

…And one more thing: Dr. Fauci needs to go to jail for the rest of his life because, through his funding illegal gain-of-function research, followed by his non-stop stream of dangerous lies, he has the blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans on his hands. Francis Collins can be his cellmate.

Lying to Congress is a crime. Does anyone expect the current Department of Justice to prosecute Dr. Fauci, the darling of the political left?

When Tyrants Gain Power

Just for the record, Dr. Anthony Fauci is not an elected official. He does not have the power to make laws. Americans need to remember this when he speaks. However, Americans also need to remember that there are those in Washington with the power to make laws who believe everything Dr. Fauci says.

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about a recent statement by Dr. Fauci.

The article reports:

I’m more worried about what is happening behind the scenes in the non-COVID universe while everyone is distracted by the purposeful weaponization of the healthcare institutions.  It’s the other thing, the unseen activity, that is most troublesome when the leftists are this entrenched on a singular narrative.

In this clip from Anthony Fauci on ABC This Week Sunday [Rumble Link], the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, claims that individual rights no longer exist during the era of COVID-19.  When you consider the mindset of the far-left, his opinion on communal rights -vs- individual rights is right in line with the collectivist perspective.  These people are dangerous.

This is what Dr. Fauci said:

The fact is, if you get infected, even if you are without symptoms, you very well may infect another person who may be vulnerable … So in essence, you are encroaching on their individual rights.”

The article notes:

It appears from the visible evidence, the Delta variant of COVID-19 may well be more transmissible; perhaps even more transmissible due to increased shedding from people who are vaccinated carriers of the virus. However, the death rate is lower than the traditional flu.

Unfortunately a lot of the reactions to the coronavirus have turned our Constitutional freedoms upside down. There is nothing in the U. S. Constitution that allows the government to shut down a private business or control the mask-wearing of the patrons who enter that business. These matters cannot even be decided by local governments unless there is a visible public nuisance. The rights of American citizens and business owners are theoretically protected by the U.S. Constitution. Unless we begin to elect representatives at all levels of government who understand that principle, we are in danger of losing those rights.