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“I had withdrawn everything,” an unnamed NIH official said to the Wuhan researcher in an email.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.
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.
All “Smart” and wireless sources (devices and infrastructure) expose us to radiation which can cause undesirable symptoms as well as serious illnesses and injuries. Manufacturers are required to provide warnings about radiation emissions from all “Smart” and wireless products; however, these warnings aren’t necessarily easy to locate or understand. In regard to the brain, research has determined that wireless exposure can disrupt the blood-brain barrier, cause it to leak, and also kill brain cells (see 1, 2). Got pets? Exposure can affect them too.
The brain is sensitive to wireless radiation exposure. Scientists consider the nervous system to be one of the primary systems impacted by wireless and electromagnetic radiation.
An NIH study made headlines in 2011 when it found cell phone radiation altered brain activity specifically in the brain regions closest to the cell phone antenna (Volkow et al., 2011).
A study on the brains of rats exposed to Wi-Fi found impacts to the miRNA in brain tissue. The researchers concluded, “Long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz RF may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNA expression and more studies should be devoted to the effects of RF radiation on miRNA expression levels.”
Scientists from Afe Babalola University, Nigeria exposed rats to a WI-FI device and found the exposure increased the rats anxiety level and affected their locomotor function. When the scientists then studied the brains of the rats, they also found changes in the exposed groups. The researchers concluded that, “these data showed that long term exposure to WiFi may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases as observed by a significant alteration on AChE gene expression and some neurobehavioral parameters associated with brain damage.” (Obajuluwa et al., 2017)
Yale Medicine researchers exposed pregnant mice to cell phone radiation and then studied the offspring. They found the mice who were exposed prenatally had poorer memory, hyperactivity and altered brains (Aldad et al 2012). “This is the first experimental evidence that fetal exposure to radiofrequency radiation from cellular telephones does in fact affect adult behavior,” said senior author Dr. Hugh S. Taylor, professor and chief of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences.
Yale’s research findings along with numerous other studies showing impacts to the brain led doctors to sign onto an educational campaign called The BabySafe Project urging pregnant women to reduce wireless exposure to minimize risks to their babies’ brain development.
The heavy metal lead is well understood as harmful to the developing brain. Researchers who investigated the combined effects of lead and cell phone radiation have found the combined exposures linked to increased symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity symptoms (Byun 2013).
Studies in both humans and animals have linked cell phone radiation and wireless exposure to memory damage.
In a Swedish study of teenagers where scientists measured the radiation dose to the brain, just one year of cell phone use was linked to memory damage (Foerster et al., 2018).
A study investigating the impact of Wi-Fi on working memory in human subjects found changes to neural activity after Wi-Fi exposure (Papageorgiou et al., 2011).
2010;Kaplan et al., 2009; Sager and Okus 2021; Meenachi et al., 2016). As just one example, a 2022 study which found cell phone radiation damaged the hippocampus of mice concluded, “our findings suggest that 2400-MHz RF-EMR cell phone radiation affects the structural integrity of the hippocampus, which would lead to behavioral changes such as anxiety… it alerts us to the possible long-term detrimental effects of exposure to RF-EMR. (Hasan et al., 2021).
What can you do?
Simple Steps To Reduce Wireless Exposure
Minimize Children’s Use: Cell phones are not toys. Limit their use of cell phones and wireless devices.
Reduce Second Hand Exposures: If parents reduce the cell phone and wireless use in their home, but choosing safety technology, they can greatly reduce their children’s exposure.
Get to Know Airplane Mode: Airplane mode is a setting that turns wireless antennas off on your cell phone or device. Be sure to ensure Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Cellular, and HotSpot antennas are also turned to OFF. The more you use this setting, the less your children are exposed.
Choose Wired Connections: You can easily swap out most wireless tech for safer corded non wireless technology. Once you know the simple steps, you can still connect to the internet, stream music and videos and talk on the phone- all with a safer non-wireless corded connection.
Increase Distance: The closer the cell phone or wireless device or router is to your child’s body, the more wireless radiation they can absorb. So keeping cell phones and wireless devices away from children will greatly decrease their exposure.
Ways you can reduce cell phone radiation exposure
Use speakerphone instead of holding the phone to your head
Do not sleep with the cell phone.
Do not carry the cell phone in a pocket or bra.
Text instead of talk or video calls.
Keep the cell phone at a distance from the body, instead of close to your chest.
Decrease apps on phone.
Turn off antennas you are not using.
Choose a wired airtube headset, instead of wireless headphones
Prefer a corded landline instead of a cell phone at home and work if possible.
Set airplane mode on with Wi-Fi/Bluetooth/Cellular off more often.
Minimize your overall wireless phone use.
TIP: You can connect your cell phone to the internet via an ethernet cable and turn all wireless antennas OFF.
Reduce Radiation from Computers
Connect to the internet with a hardwired ethernet connection, instead of Wi-Fi
Use a wired keyboard, speakers and mouse, not wireless
Tablets and Laptops:
Use tablets and laptops with an ethernet connection instead of WiFi
Get an adapter if your device does not have an ethernet port.
Download content instead of streaming so kids can use the device with the WiFi off
Devices should always be on a table, not on a lap.
TIP: Set WiFi to off and airplane mode to on before handing a child a device.
Cordless DECT phones use the same type of wireless radiation as cell phones. The phone bases are always emitting wireless, even if you are not using the phone.
Get a corded, not cordless, phone.
Keep your landline if you can.
If you do not have a copper landline option, consider a VOIP and internet phone option.
Install phone lines to all rooms where you need a phone
Forward your cell phone to your landline when at home to minimize cell phone use
TIP: Buy a longer handset cord for your corded phone so you can move around the room.
The National Institutes of Health was accused of involvement in a $1.2 million contract over the past decade to purchase beagles for cruel experiments, said PETA senior vice president of cruelty investigations Daphna Nachminovitch
The most recent alleged violation is from Virginia-based supplier Envigo, which is accused of providing nearly 5,000 beagle dogs and puppies to NIH and other labs to be confined and tortured.
During a PETA investigator’s visit, more than 360 dogs were allegedly found dead.
The Gateway Pundit first reported on this grotesque animal abuse in August.
“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