President Joe Biden’s chief medical advisor Anthony Fauci got called out for misinformation on COVID’s origins during a segment on BBC One’s “Sunday Morning” with Sophie Raworth on March 27, 2022.
Dr. Fauci said he was “misinterpreted.”
This is the first time a mainstream reporter confronted Fauci on his open lies about the origins of the COVID virus.
It must be nice to have an inkling of a legitimate news service.
Unfortunately, the BBC reporter did not do her research before the segment. We now know that Dr. Fauci and Dr. Dazcak initiated the call to publish the Lancet Study in February 2020 where they labeled any mention of a lab-created virus a “conspiracy” and attempted to suppress any challenges to their narrative.
A trove of documents that were uncovered by a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveals the National Institutes of Health (NIH) secretly deleted information about the genetic sequencing of the Covid-19 virus in the summer of 2020.
No surprise, former NIH director Francis Collins and NIAID Director Tony Fauci were front and center with this cover-up too.
According to Just the News — the now-deleted data was provided to the NIH by researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in March 2020, but was deleted shortly after it was received at the request of the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) aligned lab.
After an initial pushback by the NIH, the files were completely deleted in the middle of June.
The emails obtained by the Empower Oversight group show a Wuhan University researcher submitted virus sequence information to the NIH’s Sequence Read Archive in March 2020 – the same month the World Health Organization declared a pandemic and about two months after the virus was detected in Wuhan.
The scientist made an additional submission on the virus in June 2020, according to the emails. Later that day, he asked the NIH to retract the submission, claiming it was made in error.
The NIH responded by saying it preferred to edit or replace submissions over replacing them.
A few days later, the researcher submitted another request to withdraw the genetic sequence from the NIH database, according to the emails.
The NIH agreed to the researcher’s request one day later, and asked for clarification on whether another submission should be deleted.
“I had withdrawn everything,” an unnamed NIH official said to the Wuhan researcher in an email.
Additionally, a separate batch of emails recovered by EO indicated that the genetic sequencing data “seemed to support” claims that the virus was man-made and was originated from the extremely-dangerous Gain of Function research that was taking place at the Wuhan institute.
According to one email sent by Professor Trevor Bedford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, who works closely with Fauci, Collins, and the NIH explained the deleted sequencing data likely indicated that the virus originated outside the Hunan Market in Wuhan and that the “matter must be analyzed properly. But, despite communicating his concerns, it seems like the issue was never even looked into by the agency – in fact, it’s quite the contrary. The Public Health Regime has covered up any notion that this virus was created in a lab.
The newly uncovered documents further reveal that Fauci and Collins were specifically made aware of the genetic sequencing data that was eventually deleted. In one exchange with another member of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, virologist Jesse Bloom, the NIH and NIAID directors were “alerted” about the takedown and concerns over the contents of the data, prompting them to host an emergency Zoom meeting with NIH staff and affiliates.
“The documents also show an expert advised then-NIH Director Francis Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci, who leads the agency’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that COVID originated outside of the Wuhan food market, as the Chinese government has claimed.”
Keep in mind, this genetic sequencing data for the virus was provided to US Public Health officials in the earliest stages of the pandemic when absolutely nothing was widely known about it. Not only would the information have likely helped save lives but the data would have exposed the corrupt scheme behind the pandemic much earlier if it truly did confirm the lab leak theory – Hence why Fauci, Collins, and the NIH kept quiet and pulled the info down.
During an interview with ABC podcast “Start Here”, Fauci was asked if he has considered scaling back his responsibilities as the health crisis eases, to which he says that he has.
“I have said that I would stay in what I’m doing until we get out of the pandemic phase and I think we might be there already,” Fauci told host Brad Mielke. “If we can stay in this, then we’re at a point where I feel that we are done with this, but I don’t have any plans right now to go away, but you never know.”
Mielke then asked if retirement or stepping back were options for him, to which he said “I certainly have, because I have to do it sometime. I can’t stay at this job forever unless my staff finds me slumped over at my desk one day. I’d rather not do that,” he said.
Fauci said that he’d need to figure out what to do with his life after he steps down from being a “public health guy,” but that he’d like to spend more time with his wife and family.
Fauci has a lot to look forward to in his retirement, however. According to Forbes, Fauci is likely to rake in the highest-ever government retirement package in US history, “with an annual payment exceeding $350,000.”
“For the second year in a row, Fauci was the most highly compensated federal employee and out-earned the president, four-star generals, and roughly 4.3 million of his colleagues. As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Fauci earned $434,312 in 2020, the latest year available, up from $417,608 in 2019,” Forbes wrote.
Fauci, now 81, will have those payments adjust to the cost of living, as well.
One of the primary vehicles for kickbacks and fraud seems to be foundations associated with federal agencies. The reason they’re so frequently used for questionable transactions is because foundations are private entities and not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests and other open records laws
The board of directors of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) is heavily populated with Big Pharma players. This raises serious questions about conflicts of interest, as the foundation oversees the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars — unregulated funds that typically go right back into the coffers of the drug industry
This conflict of interest also, at least in part, helps explain the actions of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and now-retired director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins. Both have gone out of their way to protect the makers of COVID shots and dismiss evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was created in and escaped from a lab
Dr. Julie Gerberding became the FNIH CEO March 1, 2022. She was formerly director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. After leaving the CDC, she became the executive vice president of strategic communications at Merck
The FNIH’s board of directors includes seven current or former drug company executives, the FDA, the Sackler family (notorious for its creation of a deadly opioid epidemic), Johns Hopkins (co-sponsor of Event 201, which “predicted” COVID-19 and the subsequent destruction of human rights), and two major investment bankers, Goldman Sachs and BlackRock
One of the primary vehicles for kickbacks and fraud seems to be foundations associated with federal agencies. This article will highlight and expose yet another way we are being conned and manipulated by examining the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health1 (FNIH), whose board is plastered with major Big Pharma players.
This raises serious questions about conflicts of interest, seeing how the foundation oversees the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars — unregulated funds that typically go right back into the coffers of the drug industry. It’s a very clever strategy to extract even more funds from the American taxpayers.
This conflict of interest also, at least in part, helps explain the actions of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and now-retired director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins.2 Both have gone out of their way to protect the makers of COVID shots and dismiss evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was created in and escaped from a lab.
FNIH Board — A Who’s Who of Big Pharma
In 2020, Fauci received the FNIH’s Charles A. Sanders MD Partnership Award for his leadership and support of “FNIH programs propelling research in lethal infectious diseases.”3
Dr. Charles Sanders was the FNIH chairman between 1996 and 2016. Before that, he was the chairman and CEO of Glaxo Inc. He also spent eight years with Squibb Corp., where he held several positions, including CEO of the Science and Technology Group.4 He’s currently a member of the FNIH board of directors.
In the video above, Fauci is interviewed by Dr. Freda Lewis-Hall about his career, his achievements and the public-private partnerships that allowed for the creation of Operation Warp Speed and the rapid deployment of a COVID-19 jab. Lewis-Hall is a former chief medical officer and executive vice president at Pfizer. She is also a current board member of the FNIH.
Another striking member of the FNIH’s board is Dr. Julie Gerberding. If you have a sharp memory for details, you may recall she served as director of the CDC from 2002 to 2009.
After resigning from the CDC, she entered the express revolving door between industry and government and was hired by Merck as their vice president in charge of vaccines. Imagine that — the head of the government agency responsible for policing vaccines is hired by one of the world’s largest producers of vaccines.
Sadly, it’s all perfectly legal. Later, she oversaw global public policy and strategic communications at Merck, followed by a position as chief patient officer and executive vice president for population health and sustainability.5 Gerberding has now taken her nefarious behavior to an entirely new level. She’s slid back through yet another revolving door and is the CEO of FNIH as of March 1, 2022.6 Other FNIH board members include:
Chairman Dr. Steven Paul, CEO and chairman of Karuna Therapeutics
Marijn Dekkers, Ph.D., chairman of Novalis LifeSciences
Paul Herrling, Ph.D., chairman for the Novartis Institute for Tropical Diseases
Dr. Paul Stoffels, vice chairman of the executive committee and chief scientific officer for Johnson & Johnson
Jillian Sackler, president and CEO of the Dame Jillian and Dr. Arthur M. Sackler Foundation for the Arts, Sciences and Humanities
Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Professor Emeritus, Johns Hopkins University
James Donovan, a Goldman Sachs partner
Russel Steenberg, managing director and global head of BlackRock Private Equity Partners
The two non-voting directors are Collins and Dr. Stephen Hahn, the current commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. This is quite the list.
We’ve got seven current or former drug company executives, the CDC, the FDA, the Sackler family (notorious for its creation of a deadly opioid epidemic), Johns Hopkins (co-sponsor of Event 201, which “predicted” COVID-19 and the subsequent destruction of human rights), and two major investment bankers, Goldman Sachs and BlackRock.
The inclusion of BlackRock is particularly interesting, and disturbing, considering they have a hidden monopoly on global asset holdings. Together with Vanguard,BlackRock has ownership in some 1,600 American firms, which in 2015 had combined revenues of $9.1 trillion. If you add in the third-largest global asset holder, State Street, their combined ownership encompasses nearly 90% of all S&P 500 firms.7 Just what is BlackRock doing on the FNIH’s board of directors?
Who Funds the FNIH?
Then there are the donors. The largest donor to the FNIH is none other than Bill Gates. According to the FNIH’s 2020 statutory report,8 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated $96,981,262 that year, accounting for 15% of the Foundation’s annual revenue.9
In 2019, the Gates Foundation’s contribution of $49,827,480 accounted for 35% of the annual revenue.10,11,12 As the top donor, it’s not farfetched to assume Gates might have significant leverage over the direction of the foundation and its funds. GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Pfizer and Wellcome also donated between $5 million and $10 million each in 2020.13 FNIH programs funded by the Gates Foundation include but are not limited to:
Combining Epitope Based Vaccine Design with Informatics-Based Evaluation
Global collaborative for Coordination of Gene Drive Research and Development
The Partnership to Accelerate Novel TB Regimens
mRNA encoded HIV Env-Gag Virus-like-particle Vaccines
The last program on the list — the creation of novel mRNA-based HIV vaccines — is described14 as a project to “test a new HIV vaccine concept in animals using noninfectious ‘virus-like particles’ encoded by an RNA vaccine with the goal of inducing protective antibody responses.”
The initial request for collaboration came from the NIAID at the end of July 2020. In August 2020, the FNIH Portfolio Oversight Committee approved the project, “contingent upon a commitment of full funding in the amount of $1.45 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”
The Gates Foundation fulfilled that commitment in October 2020. A memorandum of understanding between the FNIH and the NIAID was finalized in early 2021. A sub-award was granted to the University of Montreal (CHUM), and Bioqual was given a service agreement to manage the clinical trial.
Bill Gates also contributes to the FNIH through Gates Ventures,15 a rapidly growing venture capital and investment firm that works side by side with the Gates Foundation’s program teams “to identify investment opportunities.”16 Specifically, Gates Ventures is an organizational donor to the FNIH’s Biomarkers Consortium (BC), a cancer steering committee, alongside a long list of drug companies.
Congress Seeks Greater Transparency
As mentioned earlier, all of this can help explain Fauci’s and Collins’ behavior during the COVID pandemic. Collins is a board member, Fauci got the foundation’s top reward for support in 2020, and money flows into the foundation from drug companies and Gates, all of whom have vested interests in making sure that whatever the NIH does and recommends to the public, it will produce profits for them.
According to its 2020 Statutory Report,17 the FNIH has raised more than $1.2 billion, and as mentioned earlier, most of that money goes right back to the drug industry, without Congressional appropriation or oversight. While the whole thing reeks of conflicts of interest, it may be difficult to get to the bottom of because, as a 501c3, the FNIH is cleverly exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Nonprofits are considered private entities, and therefore not subject to FOIA and other open records laws.18,19 However, the NIH is subject to FOIA since it’s a government agency, and the funds raised go to the NIH. Basically, it’s a system set up to bypass oversight, and the U.S. Congress is responsible for creating this fraud-fraught system.
Congress Created This Fraud-Fraught System
Congress is responsible for the oversight of federal agencies, but in the early 1990s, it created what sure looks like a pay-to-play system. Not only did Congress create the FNIH, they also set up the CDC Foundation,20 which funnels millions of dollars from drug companies and vaccine makers into the CDC.21
This explains the CDC’s highly irrational and harmful COVID recommendations. The fact that the CDC lies about its pharma funding only makes it all the more suspicious. The CDC has long fostered the perception of independence by stating it does not accept funding from special interests.
In disclaimers peppered throughout the CDC’s website22 and in its publications, it says the agency “does not accept commercial support” and has “no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products.” With the information exposed in this article it is obvious that this is a cleverly obfuscated pack of lies — all possible through sheer semantics, as the funds are diverted through the foundation rather than going straight to the CDC.
In 2019, several watchdog groups — including the U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), Public Citizen, Knowledge Ecology International, Liberty Coalition and the Project on Government Oversight — petitioned23 the CDC to stop making these false disclaimers24 because, in reality, the CDC receives millions of dollars each year from commercial interests through its government-chartered foundation, the CDC Foundation, which funnels those contributions to the CDC after deducting a fee.25
On the CDC Foundation’s website, you’ll find a long list26 of “corporate partners” that have provided the CDC with funding over the years. The CDC even accepts money earmarked for specific studies or programs aimed at expanding corporate profits or reducing drug companies’ liability exposure.27
As just one example, in 2018, Collins ended up canceling a $100 million study to assess the effects of moderate alcohol consumption after it was discovered that the NIH had inappropriately solicited money for the study directly from the spirits industry, and had designed the study “to satisfy industry interests.”28 Collins also had to ditch a $400 million study into opioid dependency after an independent panel warned there were potential conflicts of interest.29
In 2018, a congressional spending panel also warned the FNIH and the CDC Foundation that their disclosures of financial donations were inadequate. As reported by Science at the end of June 2018:30
“Congress created the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) and the CDC Foundation … to raise private funds to support federal biomedical and health research.
It hoped to encourage transparency and prevent potential conflicts of interest by specifying in the law that the foundations had to report ‘the source and amount of all gifts’ they receive, as well as any restrictions on how the donations could be used.
But last week, legislators on the House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee that oversees NIH and CDC expressed concern that the foundations may not be following those disclosure rules …
A report accompanying a 2019 spending bill moving through Congress reminds the foundations to abide by the PHSA when writing their annual reports … The lawmakers also say it’s not OK to hide the identity of donors who have attached strings to their gift by labeling them as ‘anonymous.’
The language ‘is a marker that we want more transparency,’ says one House appropriations staffer, speaking on background because of committee rules on who can speak to the press. ‘We’d like to see [the foundations] go further, and this language is meant to start a conversation.’”
Among “anonymous” donors to the FNIH in 2016 were the Gates Foundation, despite having given a sizeable $19.1 million grant.31 While the financial statements of these foundations may have improved since 2018, the system itself, which gives private industry the power to influence regulatory agencies through unregulated funding, remains unchanged.
Globalists Aim to Take Over Health Systems Worldwide
The reason for having a BlackRock representative on the FNIH’s board of directors could potentially have something to do with the globalists’ plan to monopolize health systems worldwide — a plan that is taking shape as we speak.
In June 2021, Gerberding, now head of the FNIH, wrote a Time article32 laying out the framework for an international pandemic-surveillance network, which would include threat prediction and preemption as well. While Gerberding did not name the World Health Organization, we now know that’s the organization designated as the top-down ruler, not only of all things related to pandemics but also health in general. I’ll have an entire article detailing this in tomorrow’s newsletter.
It’s important to realize that unless we can somehow prevent the WHO from acquiring this power, it will be able to dictate things like mandatory vaccinations and health passports moving forward, and its dictates would supersede all national and state laws. We simply cannot let this happen.
At the same time, we need to realize just how bought and paid for our U.S. regulatory agencies are, and figure out a way to clean up that mess. There’s been a revolving door between government and private industry for decades, which is how we got here in the first place. Closing that door might be a first step in the right direction, but it’s not going to be enough by itself.
The NIH, CDC and the Food and Drug Administration are all so thoroughly infiltrated by industry, restoring them to their intended functions is no easy task. Disturbingly, the same technocratic powers that are working to give the WHO global power over global health have also infiltrated these U.S. agencies. As a result, they’re unlikely to push back. They’re going to be more than willing to take orders from the WHO.
Senator Rand Paul has announced that he intends to introduce an amendment in the Senate to prevent anyone from ever again becoming a health ‘dictator in chief’.
In an op-ed for Fox News, Paul noted that the action “would eliminate Dr. Fauci’s position as NIAID director,” as well as “divide his power into 3 separate institutes.”
Paul explained that “Each of these three institutes will be led by a director who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term.”
The Senator added that “This will create accountability and oversight into a taxpayer-funded position that has largely abused its power and has been responsible for many failures and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“No one person should have unilateral authority to make decisions for millions of Americans,” Paul urged, adding that his amendment could “ensure that ineffective, unscientific lockdowns and mandates are never foisted on the American people ever again.”
“No one person should have the sole authority to dictate science, especially when that one person wasn’t ever following the science,” Paul asserted, emphasising that “For two years our lives were held captive by petty tyrants and power-hungry bureaucrats.”
Paul pointed to the recent Johns Hopkins study that found global lockdowns have had a much more detrimental impact on society than they have produced any benefit, with researchers urging that they “are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”
“A rational person might ask, how in the world did it take us so long to get to the truth?” Paul noted, asking “Why did we spend two years not following the science?”
“Well again, that’s what happens when “the science” is dictated by one man, an unelected bureaucrat with far too much power,” he concluded, referring to Fauci.
“Dr. Fauci caused people to engage in activities they wouldn’t have normally by telling them it was safe when masked when it wasn’t. I tried to sound the alarm, but I was censored by YouTube and my videos were taken down,” Paul noted.
He continued, “Dr. Fauci and his friends worked diligently to silence opposing views. The media amplified his efforts. We were branded conspiracy theorists and anti-science for simply asking questions and presenting alternatives to what had been delivered to the American people as ‘fact.’”
As we noted at the time, YouTube suspended Paul for questioning the efficacy of face masks despite the fact that the Senator’s comments were virtually identical to those made by Joe Biden’s former COVID adviser Dr. Michael Osterholm just one week prior.
Months later, when the CDC revised its guidelines on masks, admitting that cloth masks do virtually nothing to stop the spread of COVID, Paul asked “Does this mean snot-nosed censors at YouTube will come to my office and kiss my … and admit I was right?”
“The biggest lesson we have learned over the last two years is that no one person should have this much-unchecked power. And my amendment, which will get a vote this week, will finally force accountability and fire Dr. Fauci,” Paul asserted Sunday.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was confronted with a new Johns Hopkins comprehensive study that shows “lockdowns” were a complete failure worldwide.
When asked about the irrefutable evidence that the lockdowns caused massive damage, but delivered no tangible benefits, Psaki went into full spin-mode.
“We’ve not been pro-lockdown — most of the lockdowns actually happened under the previous President,” Psaki claimed. This is directly contrary to the policies advocated by Biden advisers, particularly Dr. Anthony Fauci.
The study in question is a thorough review done by Johns Hopkins university. It is damning.
“What does the evidence tell us about the effects of lockdowns on mortality?” We provide a firm answer to this question: The evidence fails to confirm that lockdowns have a significant effect in reducing COVID-19 mortality. The effect is little to none. The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century.
However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.
That’s as blunt a refutation of lockdowns from an academic institution as it gets.
Obviously, Jen Psaki’s lie about the White House never being ‘pro-lockdown’ is at direct odds with numerous statements given by Biden’s chief Covid adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci.
In April 2021, Fauci was asked about states like Florida and Texas, which lifted their lockdowns and did not see a subsequent rise in cases.
“I’m not really quite sure,” he said. “It could be they’re doing things outdoors.”
Fauci added in his MSNBC interview that it may take weeks to see any effects from re-opening the state on the number of COVID cases.
“I hope they continue to tick down. If they do, that would be great but there’s always the concern when you pull back on methods — particularly on things like indoor dining and bars that are crowded — you could see a delay and then all of a sudden tick right back up,” Fauci said.
“We’ve been fooled before by situations where people begin to open back up. Nothing happens and then all of a sudden several weeks later things explode on you, so we’ve got to be careful we don’t prematurely judge that,” he added.
Texas and Florida became two of the biggest targets of criticism for lockdown and mask advocates. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have consistently defied Fauci’s advice and also taken stands against COVID passports. The benefits to citizens were much-improved economic outcomes, as well as a much better quality of life — leading to millions fleeing there from blue states.
While Donald Trump did turn to Fauci as one of his key advisers, he was a frequent critic of lockdowns and mandates. Jen Psaki can dodge the actual “science” all she wants, but she’s only throwing her own Covid advisers under the bus.
The latest study from Johns Hopkins found that the initial Fauci economic shutdowns did little to reduce mortalities during the COVID pandemic in 2020. They were very disruptive to the economy and society at large.
The original coronavirus lockdowns had ‘little to no’ effect on pandemic death tolls in the US, UK and Europe, a controversial report suggests.
Economists who carried out a meta-analysis estimated that draconian restrictions first imposed in spring 2020 — including stay-at-home orders, compulsory masks and social distancing — only reduced Covid mortality by 0.2 percent.
They warned that lockdowns caused ‘enormous economic and social costs’ and concluded they were ‘ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument’ going forward.
The review, led by a Johns Hopkins University professor, argued that border closures had virtually zero effect on Covid mortality, reducing deaths by just 0.1 per cent.
An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality. More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality…
Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who state, “Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission…
In Edmonton, Canada, isolation and quarantine were instituted; public meetings were banned; schools, churches, colleges, theaters, and other public gathering places were closed; and business hours were restricted without obvious impact on the epidemic.” Our findings are also in line with Allen’s (2021) conclusion: “The most recent research has shown that lockdowns have had, at best, a marginal effect on the number of Covid 19 deaths.”
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author’s opinion
Republicans will launch an investigation into Dr. Anthony Fauci if they win back control of the U.S. House in November’s midterm elections, says Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan.
During an interview on Sunday Morning Futures, Jordan said Republicans will “uncover” what Fauci knew about the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.
Republican Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall, an ally to Jordan, released Fauci’s financial records over the weekend. The records appear to show that Fauci and his wife have a combined net worth of around $10 million.
Records also showed that Fauci and his wife were paid tens of thousands of dollars to attend four galas and ceremonies — three of them virtual — during the pandemic.
Jordan argued that these revelations and recently released emails prove there’s a “need to investigate Fauci.”
“If the American people put us back in charge, we are definitely going to do this,” Jordan said, adding that his colleagues would push for a congressional investigation into the origins of the coronavirus.
“Because we now know without a doubt that Dr. Fauci knew on Jan. 31 and Feb. 1 that this thing came from a lab,” Jordan argued. “The top scientists in the country were saying it came from a lab. One scientist says we got the notes now from the conference call on February 1st. One scientist says, ‘I don’t see how this can happen in nature, but it would be easy to do in a lab.’”
“And yet just in a matter of days, they changed their position, write the article that appears in Nature of Medicine Magazine, which then gets cited in the now-famous letter The Lancet, which became the gospel for the fact that Fauci can go out and tell people it didn’t come from a lab when in fact they knew it did,” Jordan continued.
“The interesting thing is. We point this out. We just learned this last week, the two doctors who were most adamant that this thing came from a lab early on: one is Dr. Kristian Anderson. On Jan. 31, 2020, he says this to Dr. Fauci in an email: ‘Virus looks engineered. Virus not consistent with evolutionary theory.’ So, he knew it came from a lab,” he added.
“They changed their position,” Jordan argued. “And a few months later, guess what? They get an $8.9 million, both him and Dr. [Robert] Garry – the guy who said it couldn’t happen naturally.”
Jordan’s comments came after
Republican leaders on the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees have released excerpts of emails that they say reveal National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease Director Dr. Anthony Fauci knew that COVID-19 may have been intentionally modified and leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
In a letter, GOP Reps. James Comer and Jim Jordan noted a Feb. 1, 2020, conference call that included Fauci and former National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, where the virus’ origins were discussed.
“It was on this conference call that Drs. Fauci and Collins were first warned that COVID-19 may have leaked from the WIV and, further, may have been intentionally genetically manipulated,” the Republicans’ letter said.
The congressmen said that “it is unclear if either Dr. Fauci or Dr. Collins ever passed these warnings along to other government officials or if they simply ignored them.”
The letter said other scientists participated in the call, four of whom wrote a paper titled, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” that they sent to Fauci and Collins three days after the call.
Republicans are questioning whether Fauci and/or Collins played a role in the “lab leak” theory being dropped.
“It is unclear what, if any, new evidence was presented or if the underlying science changed in that short period of time, but after speaking with Drs. Fauci and Collins, the authors abandoned their belief COVID-19 was the result of a laboratory leak,” Comer and Jordan said, adding that they do not know whether Fauci or Collins edited the paper before it was published in Nature Medicine.
One email that detailed the meeting in question came from Dr. Jeremy Farrar to Collins, where Fauci and current NIH Acting Director Lawrence Tabak stated that “a likely explanation” could involve “accidentally creating a virus that would be primed for rapid transmission between humans[.]”
Discussing the similarities to a bat coronavirus and the very specific differences, Farrar said he “just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature.”
In response, however, Collins wrote that he was “coming around to the view that a natural origin is more likely.”
In April, just a few months later, Collins, Fauci, Tabak, and others were emailing about a “very destructive conspiracy” detailing the lab leak theory.
“I hoped the Nature Medicine article on the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 would settle this. But probably didn’t get much visibility,” Collins said.
“I would not do anything about this right now. It is a shiny object that will go away in time,” Fauci wrote back.
Comer and Jordan are asking HHS for information about whether Collins or Fauci warned the White House about the “lab leak theory” between Feb. 1 and Feb. 4, 2020.
“Time for answers,” the House Oversight Committee Republicans tweeted.
Soviet-style posters mocking President Joe Biden and White House Medical Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci popped up overnight Saturday in Washington, D.C., but the posters were ripped down within hours.
Leigh Wolf, a conservative communications professional, tweeted photos of the four posters.
“Somebody put up this incredible street art in DC over night,” he said. “Knowing DC it’ll be ripped down within hours. All must comply!”
One photo of the poster shows an angry Biden holding a hammer labeled OHSA (Occupational Health and Safety Administration) and with the word “COMPLY” serving as a border. Another poster shows a Biden portrayed as a saint surrounded by a halo of vaccines. The poster states, “Good kids are compliant kids” as children look up at the president.
“Mandate! Segregate! Subjugate!” is written at the top of another poster featuring Biden holding a sphere of the coronavirus. The fourth poster shows Dr. Fauci dressed in a priest’s garb, with an atom halo holding a giant vaccine as pills and money rain behind him, and the caption is “Trust the scientism.”
About ten minutes after tweeting pictures of the posters, Wolf followed up with a video. “ANNND some lady is already out here ripping down the ‘dangerous propaganda,'” he wrote.
He asked the woman in the video why she was tearing down the posters.
“It’s a public health concern,” she told him.
“I mean, it’s just art,” Wolf replied.
“It is dangerous. Propaganda is a tool,” she said, adding, “this is bulls***.”
Tablet Magazine CTO Noam Blum found the posters in another location in D.C. and also tweeted a photo.
Not the Bee, a website from creators of the satirical Babylon Bee, created an article about the posters headlined, “Someone put up this brilliantly based street art in D.C. and of course some Karen came along to tear it down.”
It appears that Dr. Anthony Fauci made a gigantic mistake when he crossed Republican Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall, who has now shown the world the doctor’s financial information.
His financial records show that Dr. Fauci, who makes more than President Joe Biden annually and is the highest paid federal employee, and his wife, have a combined net worth of around $10 million, The Daily Mail reported.
Fauci’s salary is $434,312 annually, more than Biden’s $400,000, and his wife, Christine Grady, who works as the Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health, rakes in $176,000 each year.
And it also showed that Fauci, who has headed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, and his wife, profited during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fauci’s records show that he and his wife were paid $13,298 to attend four galas and ceremonies – three of them virtual.
He was paid $5,000 to attend a ‘RFK Ripple of Hope’ virtual awards ceremony in December 2020; $1,600 to attend ‘An Evening of Hope’ virtual event in April 2020; and $1,500 to attend a ‘Prepared for Life’ virtual gala in October 2020.
He was also reimbursed $5,198 for costs associated with his being awarded federal employee of the year and being given the Service to America medal, in October 2020.
The four events were listed under ‘gifts and travel reimbursements’.
They also have an interest in an Italian restaurant in San Francisco, Jackson Fillmore Trattoria. The restaurant did not make them any money, however, the disclosures show.
Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady, 69, is also still working full-time at the National Institutes of Health on an annual salary of $176,000.
The senator who leaked Fauci’s financials had an altercation with him during a Senate hearing this week which also brought him to introduce legislation named for Fauci.
The “Fauci Act,” as it is being called, is being introduced by Republican Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall who wants to capitalize on a hot-mic moment Dr. Fauci had this week, The New York Post reported.
The bill, formally titled the Financial Accountability for Uniquely Compensated Individuals (FAUCI) Act, would also require the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) to publish a list of government officials whose financial disclosures are not publicly available, according to multiple outlets.
Marshall clashed with the White House chief medical adviser during a Senate hearing Tuesday after the senator asked Fauci: “Would you be willing to submit to Congress and the public a financial disclosure that includes your past and current investments?”
“My financial disclosure is public knowledge and has been so for the last 37 years or so,” the doctor, who called Marshall “so misinformed, it’s extraordinary,” said.
“We cannot find them. Our office cannot find them. Where would they be if they are public knowledge?” the senator said.
“It is totally accessible to you if you want it,” the doctor said.
“For the public? Is it accessible to the public?” the senator said.
“To the public, to the public!” Dr. Fauci said.
“Great, we look forward to reviewing it,” Sen. Marshall responded.
But after that Dr. Fauci muttered into the live mic, “What a moron! Jesus Christ!”
“Well, I think we were both very much in the moment,” the senator said to Fox News. “I did not take it personal one bit. I was more focused on the true facts. The fact that he had just lied to Congress.”
“And it takes the NIH, it takes this White House months to respond to any type of request for information, and then it’s redacted. It’s quite a game they’re playing. So I was shocked, I was shocked by his response, that he would lie to Congress again after he had already lied about the viral gain-of-function question that I asked him earlier,” the senator said.
“As far as I'm concerned, it's a damned shame that a field as potentially dynamic and vital as journalism should be overrun with dullards, bums, and hacks, hag-ridden with myopia, apathy, and complacence, and generally stuck in a bog of stagnant mediocrity.” -Hunter Thompson