Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Exposed: How Anthony Fauci tortured vulnerable children in his obsessive hunt for an HIV vaccine

By Sally Beck | TCW Defending Freedom | October 20, 2022

Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to President Biden and director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for 38 years, has resigned and is leaving his post in December. He also steps down as director of the National Institutes for Health (NIH); both organisations are government-funded.

The 81-year-old virologist, who has served seven presidents, is quitting not because (as he says) he wants ‘new challenges’, but because of two books Robert F Kennedy Jnr (RFK) has written exposing him as a liar and a fraud, says Tony Lyons, President at Skyhorse Publishing, the independent publisher of both books.

Lyons said: ‘He used every available form of censorship to protect himself about the allegations in the first book and he doesn’t have any tools left to combat the likely congressional hearings in January.

‘Censorship as a government weapon against dissent has grown to unprecedented levels in the US. It’s a danger to the future of real science, real freedom, and real democracy.’

RFK’s first book, The Real Anthony Fauci, sold one million copies and topped the New York Times best-seller list despite extreme mainstream media censorship. It exposed Fauci’s role in the Covid pandemic and in the disastrous response to the HIV/Aids crisis in the 1980s and 1990s.

In a second book called ‘The Wuhan Cover Up – How US Health Officials Conspired with the Chinese Military to Hide the Origins of COVID-19’ due to be released next year, RFK uncovers the complex web of control and censorship at the heart of this story. Kennedy accuses Fauci of being the architect of the pandemic by funding ‘gain-of-function’ research – or bioweapon research, in plain English – in China’s Wuhan lab, the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

If the books were not enough to send Fauci running for cover, this week RFK released a free-to-view documentary The Real Anthony Fauci Documentary (salsalabs.org) based on his first book’s findings.

Here is an extract from The Real Anthony Fauci, which details experiments he sanctioned on vulnerable American children during his HIV research.

***

Warning: Some of the following details are distressing.

In 2004, investigative journalist Liam Scheff chronicled Dr Fauci’s secretive experiments on hundreds of HIV-positive foster children at Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) in New York City and numerous sister facilities in New York and six other states between 1988 and 2002. Those experiments were the core of Dr Fauci’s career-defining effort to develop a second generation of profitable AIDS drugs as an encore to AZT.

Scheff described how Dr Fauci’s NIAID and his Big Pharma partners turned black and Hispanic foster kids into lab rats, subjecting them to torture and abuse in a grim parade of unsupervised drug and vaccine studies: “This former convent houses a revolving stable of children who’ve been removed from their own homes by the Agency for Child Services [ACS]. These children are black, Hispanic, and poor. Many of their mothers had a history of drug abuse and have died. Once taken into ICC, the children become subjects of drug trials sponsored by [Dr Fauci’s] NIAID (a division of the National Institutes of Health), NICHD (the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) in conjunction with some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies – GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Genentech, Chiron/Biocine and others.”

NIAID’s Pharma partners remunerated Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) for supplying children for the tests. As usual, Dr Fauci had the safety oversight board rigged with his loyal principal investigators (PIs), foremost of whom was Dr Stephen Nicholas, a generously funded NIAID AIDS drug researcher. “Stephen Nicholas was not only director of the ICC until 2002; he also simultaneously sat on the Paediatric Medical Advisory Panel, which was supposed to oversee the tests—which signifies a serious conflict of interest,” criticizes [Holocaust survivor and medical abuse investigator] Vera Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP), a medical industry watchdog organization.

Scheff continued, “The drugs being given to the children are toxic – they’re known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage, and fatal skin disorders.

“If the children refuse the drugs, they’re held down and force fed. If the children continue to resist, they’re taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital, where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the drugs are injected directly into their intestines.

“In 2003, two children, ages six and twelve, had debilitating strokes due to drug toxicities. The six-year-old went blind. They both died shortly after. Another fourteen-year-old died recently. An eight-year-old boy had two plastic surgeries to remove large, fatty, drug-induced lumps from his neck.

“This isn’t science fiction. This is AIDS research.”

Even the foster children who survived Fauci’s experiments reported dire side effects, ranging from skin outbreaks and hives, nausea, and vomiting, to sharp drops in immune response and fevers—all common adverse reactions associated with the drugs he was targeting for development.

During one of his trials involving the drug Dapsone, at least ten children died. A May 2005 Associated Press investigation reported that those “children died from a variety of causes, including four from blood poisoning.” Researchers complained they were unable to determine a safe, useful dosage. Their guessing game cost those children their lives.

“An unexpected finding in our study,” the researchers pitilessly observed, “was that overall mortality while receiving the study drug was significantly higher in the daily Dapsone group.” NIAID researchers shrugged off the deaths as a mystery: “This finding remains unexplained.”

Vera Sharav spent years investigating Dr Fauci’s torture chambers as part of her lifelong mission to end cruel medical experimentation on children. Sharav told me, “Fauci just brushed all those dead babies under the rug. They were collateral damage in his career ambitions. They were throw-away children.” Sharav said that at least eighty children died in Dr Fauci’s Manhattan concentration camp and accused NIAID and its partners of disposing of children’s remains in mass graves.

The BBC’s heart-breaking 2004 documentary, Guinea Pig Kids, chronicles the savage barbarity of Dr Fauci’s science projects from the perspective of the affected children. That year, the BBC hired investigative reporter Celia Farber to conduct field research for the film, which exposes the dark underside of Big Pharma’s stampede to develop lucrative new AIDS remedies. “I found the mass grave at Gate of Heaven cemetery in Hawthorne, New York,” she told me. “I couldn’t believe my eyes. It was a very large pit with AstroTurf thrown over it, which you could actually lift up. Under it one could see dozens of plain wooden coffins, haphazardly stacked. There may have been 100 of them. I learned there was more than one child’s body in each. Around the pit was a semi-circle of several large tombstones on which upward of one thousand children’s names had been engraved. I wrote down every name. I’m still wondering who the rest of those kids were. As far as I know, nobody has ever asked Dr Fauci that haunting question.

“I remember the teddy bears and hearts in piles around the pit and I recall the flies buzzing around. The job of recording all those names took all day. NIAID, New York, and all the hospital PIs were stonewalling us. We couldn’t get any accurate estimate of the number of children who died in the NIAID experiments, or who they were. I went to check the gravestone names against death certificates at the NYC Department of Health, which you could still do at that time. The BBC wanted to match these coffins to the names of children who were known to have been at ICC. It was a very slow, byzantine project with tremendous institutional resistance, but we did turn up a few names. We learned the story of a father who had come out of prison looking for his son. He was told his son had died at ICC of AIDS and there were no medical records, as they’d all been ‘lost in a fire.’ He was devastated. This story ran in the NY Post, believe it or not. But one after the other, every media outlet that touched this story got cold feet. Even then, the medical cartel had this power to kill this kind of story. Dr Fauci has built his career on that attitude. Nobody even asks him a follow-up question. NIAID’s narrative, at that time, was that these children were among the doomed as they ‘had AIDS,’ so supposedly they were all going to die anyway. When people died, in large numbers, gruesome deaths, NIAID’s medical researchers called it ‘lessons learned.’”

Further reading: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/exclusive-an-interview-with-faucis-nemesis/

In Part 2: How Fauci ignored ethics and regulations in his experiments on babies and children.

October 30, 2022 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Gearing Up to Fight Biological Weapons?’ White House Launches $88 Billion National Biodefense Strategy

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | October 20, 2022

The Biden administration on Tuesday announced a new $88 billion national biodefense strategy that outlines the government’s plans for how to respond to future pandemics, public health emergencies and biological threats.

The launch of the “National Biodefense Strategy and Implementation Plan for Countering Biological Threats, Enhancing Pandemic Preparedness, and Achieving Global Health Security” included the signing of National Security Memorandum-15 (NSM-15).

Key elements of the new strategy include the rapid production and distribution of vaccines and diagnostic tests, and enhancing global health security.

The strategy also includes a new framework for the federal government’s role during a future crisis, which places the White House at the center of any such response, coordinating the actions of multiple federal agencies.

The White House said the new strategy adopts lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

In an interview with The Defender, University of Illinois international law professor Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, said:

“It appears that the enormous amount of money here, $88 billion over five years, when you add it on to well over, I would say, maybe $130 billion [in biodefense spending] since Sept. 11, 2001, means that they are gearing up to fight biological weapons warfare around the world.”

Boyle told The Defender that between October 2001 and October 2015, the federal government spent $100 billion “on biological warfare purposes.”

“To put that into perspective,” he said, “in constant dollars, the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb was $40 billion.”

Plan calls for development, distribution of new vaccines within 130 days

Biden’s new biodefense strategy includes the rapid development and deployment of new vaccines and diagnostics that it foresees in response to any future “biological threats.”

According to the White House’s plan, these “biological threats” may be “naturally occurring, accidental [or] deliberate,” “with the potential to significantly impact humans, animals (domestic and wildlife), plants, and the environment, and to negatively affect health, the economy, society, and security.”

According to STAT, the plan’s targets include:

  • Being able to test for new pathogens within 12 hours.
  • Making rapid tests available to the public within 90 days.
  • Repurposing existing drugs within 90 days.
  • Developing vaccines within 100 days.
  • Manufacturing enough of the new vaccine for the entire U.S. population within 130 days and “for the high-risk global population” within 200 days.
  • Developing new treatments within 180 days.

In justifying the new strategy, an unnamed senior Biden administration official quoted by The Hill said:

“We … know that the risk of another pandemic as bad or worse than COVID is a real threat. The new National Biodefense Strategy therefore outlines a bold vision … towards a world free of pandemics and catastrophic biological incidents.”

According to Defense One, other goals contained within the plan include “detecting the spread of pathogens before patients even begin to show symptoms like fever” and “scaling up the number of diagnostic test kits by tens of thousands within a week.”

A further element of the plan is “restoring community, the economy and the environment after a pandemic or biological incident,” The Hill reported.

The Biden administration’s plan also includes provisions for preparedness against the “accidental release of biological agents, and threats posed by terrorist groups or adversaries seeking to use biological weapons.”

Noting that COVID-19 “has highlighted that the United States and the world are vulnerable to biological threats, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate,” the plan states:

“It is a vital interest of the United States to prepare for, prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from biological threats at home and abroad.

“Therefore, countering biological threats, advancing pandemic preparedness, and achieving global health security are top national and international security priorities for the United States.

“Moving forward, the United States must fundamentally transform its capabilities to protect our Nation from biological threats and advance pandemic preparedness and health security more broadly for the world.”

According to STAT, an unnamed senior Biden administration official said Tuesday, “One of the important things that COVID has taught us is that we need to be able to move much faster to counter pandemic threats, and we also need to be prepared for completely unknown threats.”

The same official said the plan includes “moonshot” targets that are not scientifically feasible presently, but potentially could be within a decade.

According to the official, these new developments can target the 26 families of viruses that infect humans, “many of which we are far less prepared for than coronaviruses.”

Will Congress fund it?

Some questioned the plan’s price tag and the willingness of Congress to approve its funding.

One of the elements of the new strategy is its connection to a March 2022 request to Congress for $88 billion in funding over five years for “pandemic preparedness and biodefense,” a request that has thus far “stalled.”

These monies are intended, in part, “to fund new research to predict outbreaks before they become pandemics,” and “accelerate rapid testing to get ahead of where viruses are moving,” Defense One said.

Some of this money will come from the baseline funding of the federal agencies involved in this strategy, but it’s unclear whether Congress has “much of an appetite for additional public health spending,” according to STAT, which noted that “Republicans in Congress have balked at recent requests for funding the ongoing monkeypox and COVID-19 responses.”

According to the White House, the new strategy “builds on USAID’s [U.S. Agency for International Development] announcement earlier this year committing $150 million to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations to accelerate the development of life-saving vaccines and countermeasures against biological threats.”

The White House also included the $1.4 billion in “seed funding” it provided earlier this year to the “groundbreaking new Financial Intermediary Fund for Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response at the World Bank.”

Boyle described the $88 billion in projected funding over the next five years as “a dramatic escalation” with “no justification from legitimate scientific reasons.”

He noted that since 2015, the federal government has “allocated anywhere from $5 to $6 billion per year on biological warfare purposes, which, being conservative, would mean a sum total from Sept. 11, 2001, until now, of $135-$140 billion.”

In his view, this money is being allocated “into further expanding the U.S. biological warfare industry … for the purpose of waging biological warfare,” and instead “should have been spent on the public health of the American people.”

‘You find Tony Fauci behind all of it’

Part of the price tag for the new biodefense strategy appears to be directed toward “recruiting, training and sustaining a robust, permanent cadre of health workers in all 50 states,” in the words of a senior Biden administration official quoted by Reuters.

Referring to it as a “public health army,” STAT reported that this “cadre of health workers” will include “laboratory technicians, veterinarians, and community health workers — to not only better detect emerging diseases but respond to them.”

In turn, Defense One reported that the strategy “aims to boost the number of local healthcare workers” and “traditional frontline healthcare workers,” but also, many new positions “related to research and data collection,” including “expanding the CDC’s epidemiology field officer program” and “bringing more epidemiologists to every state.”

The Biden administration also said it is “committed to helping at least 50 countries strengthen their own local capacities,” “strengthening public health workforces both in the United States and globally” and “establishing international mechanisms to bolster laboratory safety,” according to STAT.

For some, “international mechanisms” may bring to mind the recent and ongoing efforts by the World Health Organization (WHO) to establish a renewed “global pandemic treaty” — efforts in which the United States under the Biden administration has played a leading role.

As previously reported by The Defender, the Biden administration expressed broad support for a “pandemic treaty” and previously headed negotiations on this issue.

In his interview with The Defender, Boyle also drew connections between the Biden administration’s new strategy, and efforts to develop the “pandemic treaty.”

Referring to the Biden administration’s recently signed executive order on “advancing biotechnology and biomanufacturing,” Boyle remarked that it makes mention of “dual-use research of concern, and research involving potentially pandemic and other high-consequence pathogens.”

For Boyle, “dual-use research” refers to the development of both “offensive and defensive biological weapons of warfare,” noting that “when it comes to biological warfare, defense means offense.”

“If they are saying they are doing all this for defensive purposes, it’s because they are also planning offensive use of biological warfare weapons, with the defense to defend themselves in the event that adversaries respond in kind,” Boyle added.

This then connects to the “pandemic treaty,” according to Boyle, noting that Dr. Anthony Fauci has close ties to the WHO’s executive committee:

“If you recall, Trump pulled us out of the WHO. The first act Biden did was to put us back into the WHO … and he appointed Tony Fauci as the U.S. government’s representative on the WHO executive committee.

“So the same guy supporting this ‘dual research of concern’ … is also implementing, supervising this new WHO treaty.”

Biden’s strategy also “calls for international mechanisms that can help strengthen lab safety and biosecurity practices around the world,” especially in light of “questions about the risks and benefits of research into potentially dangerous viruses,” including the COVID-19 Wuhan lab-leak theory.

This may indicate that Biden is seeking to expand gain-of-function research globally. As recently reported by The Defender, facilities conducting such research — including a facility where a purportedly “more lethal” strain of the COVID-19 Omicron variant was developed — are currently being expanded in the U.S.

Gain of function refers to the “manipulation of pathogens to make them more dangerous,” in the hope of “getting ahead of a future outbreak.”

As part of the new strategy, a “policy coordination structure for biodefense among government agencies with oversight by the White House” was signed, Reuters reported.

According to The Hill, this memorandum “outlines the coordination structure for biodefense across federal agencies, directs agencies to prioritize biodefense, directs the intelligence community to track evolving threat landscapes and ensures the government is continuously reviewing and adjusting priorities.”

Boyle, an outspoken critic of gain-of-function research, said it appears such research will be an integral part of the Biden administration’s new biodefense strategy. He told The Defender :

“It’s clear in the language that they are going full steam ahead on abusing DNA, genetic engineering, gain-of-function, synthetic biology, gene splicing, CRISPR-Cas9, to develop biological warfare weapons.”

He said that the proposed WHO pandemic treaty includes language on “measures to provide oversight and report on laboratories that do work to genetically alter organisms in order to increase pathogenicity and transmissibility.”

For Boyle, “this means gain-of-function work, using and abusing DNA engineering, synthetic biology, CRISPR-Cas9. That’s in the WHO treaty.”

“It all ties up,” Boyle added. “The executive order, the biodefense strategy, the WHO treaty. You find Tony Fauci behind all of it.”

Boyle added:

“When you add all this up together, it seems to me they’re gearing up to prepare to wage offensive biological warfare and preparing for the defense, for other states to respond with biological warfare weapons.”

Plan calls for coordination across federal agencies under White House control

The administration’s new biodefense strategy will utilize more than 20 federal agencies, while “oversight for the strategy will be at the White House, under the national security advisor.”

According to a  senior Biden administration official, the new strategy “directs the U.S. intelligence community to monitor for threats and ensure the United States ‘continuously adapts to this evolving threat landscape’ by holding annual exercises,” to “prevent epidemics and biological incidents before they happen,” Reuters reported.

This may bring to mind exercises and simulations that took place just prior to the COVID-19, monkeypox and anthrax outbreaks, which appeared to predict, with remarkable similarity, what was to follow.

According to Biden’s new strategy, the heads of the relevant federal agencies “shall implement the Biodefense Strategy, as well as related strategies such as the U.S. Global Health Security Strategy, and include biodefense-related activities … within their strategic planning and budgetary processes.”

Federal agencies also will be expected to coordinate with each other and with non-federal agencies on matters pertaining to “the biodefense enterprise.”

Is new strategy a ‘moonshot,’ or ‘pie-in-the-sky’?

In addition to questions about funding, some also questioned the feasibility of the new plan.

Defense One wrote that meeting some of the “moonshot” goals of the strategy “will require scaling up data-collection efforts at research facilities around the globe,” in addition to significantly ratcheting up a host of other research-related efforts, noting that the administration “did not specify exactly what technologies they will invest in.”

According to Defense One, “new approaches to RNA research” to “ease pandemics” may need to be developed, in addition to “new forms of plant-based vaccines” that could “allow for the scaling up of vaccine production by orders of magnitude.”

An unnamed senior Biden administration official quoted by Defense One acknowledged that the “moonshots” foreseen by the plan “are not possible today, but these capabilities can be achieved and are within our reach with the right resources over the next five to 10 years.”

Hiring more health workers may also prove challenging for the Biden administration due to a shortage of nurse practitioners that is expected to grow by 2025, along with looming “shortages of other healthcare workers.”

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

October 21, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 1 Comment

Head of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission discusses the likely Lab Origins of SARS-CoV-2

The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | August 6, 2022

Professor Jeffrey Sachs is an American academic with specialities in economics, global poverty, human-induced climate change and financial crises. Jeffrey is University Professor at Columbia University and before this was professor at Harvard University. He has worked as Special Advisor to UN Secretaries-General Kofi Annan, Ban Ki-moon and Antonio Guterres.

The mini résumé above is to show that Professor Sachs is pretty mainstream. So mainstream in fact, that he was appointed, early in the pandemic, as the Chair of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission. So mainstream, that he appointed Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance to chair the Lancet’s task force on the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

A few weeks ago, Professor Sachs said a few ‘controversial’ statements about the origins of Covid. Now, a more detailed interview with him, in Current Affairs, has revealed some important facts. Most of us have read much of this information for a few years now but coming from the head of the Lancet Commission, these statements are quite extraordinary.

Click on the link above to read the whole interview but I have included some fascinating quotations below.

When asked about his recent statement about being pretty convinced about a lab leak he said:

[Scientists are] creating a narrative. And they’re denying the alternative hypothesis without looking closely at it. That’s the basic point.

Now, what is the alternative hypothesis? The alternative hypothesis is quite straightforward. And that is that there was a lot of research underway in the United States and China on taking SARS-like viruses, manipulating them in the laboratory, and creating potentially far more dangerous viruses. And the particular virus that causes COVID-19, called SARS-Cov-2, is notable because it has a piece of its genetic makeup that makes the virus more dangerous. And that piece of the genome is called the “furin cleavage site.” Now, what’s interesting, and concerning if I may say so, is that the research that was underway very actively and being promoted, was to insert furin cleavage sites into SARS-like viruses to see what would happen. Oops!

Professor Sachs was asked to distinguish between facts and speculation; do we actually know gain of function research was actually ongoing somewhere?

We have a lot of reason to believe that it was, because the scientists that were doing that research loved that research. And they explained to us publicly why it’s so important. And they wrote editorials about why this research must continue. And they made grant proposals saying that it should continue. And for those of us in the business of writing grant proposals, the fact that a particular grant proposal that’s deeply troubling was turned down doesn’t mean that it wasn’t carried out afterwards…

And the scientists like those that talk about the Huanan market, they don’t even discuss that research that was underway. That is just misdirection, to my mind. It’s like sleight of hand art. Don’t look over there. Look over here…

And yet I see NIH with its head in the ground. “Oh, no, nothing here to look at.” And then I see the scientists. “Oh, nothing here to look at. We know it’s the market. Did we find an animal? No. Do we have an explanation of where that furin cleavage site came in? No. We don’t have an explanation of the timing, which doesn’t quite look right. Oh, but don’t look over there, because there’s nothing there, they keep telling us. Well, that’s a little silly.

What I’m calling for is not the conclusion. I’m calling for the investigation. Finally, after two and a half years of this, it’s time to fess up that it might have come out of a lab and here’s the data that we need to know to find out whether it did.

He continued about Gain of Function research.

But they [champions of Gain of Function research] weren’t actually aiming to just test viruses that they were collecting in nature. They were aiming to modify those viruses. Because the scientists knew that a SARS-like virus without a furin cleavage site wouldn’t be that dangerous. But they wanted to test their drugs and vaccines and theories against dangerous viruses. Their proposal was to take hundreds, by the way—or least they talked about in one proposal more than 180 previously unreported strains—and test them for their so-called “spillover potential.” How effective would they be? And to look: do they have a furin cleavage site, or technically what’s called a proteolytic cleavage site? And if not, put them in. For heaven’s sake. My God! Are you kidding?

Jeffrey was asked about the distinction between ‘kooky theories’ and plausible ones.

The right one to look at is part of a very extensive research program that was underway from 2015 onward, funded by the NIH, by Tony Fauci, in particular NIAID [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], and it was to examine the spillover potential of SARS-like viruses. The champions of this research explained in detail their proposals. But after the event, we’d never asked them, “So what were you actually doing? What experiments did you do? What do you know?” We somehow never asked. It was better just to sweep it under the rug, which is what Fauci and the NIH have done up until this point. Maybe they could tell us, “Oh, full exoneration,” but they haven’t told us that at all. They haven’t shown us anything.  So there’s nothing “kooky” about it, because it’s precisely what the scientists were doing…

So you saw a narrative being created. And the scientists are not acting like scientists. Because when you’re acting like a scientist, you’re pursuing alternative hypotheses. And the scientists just wrote recently an op-ed saying the only evidence that this came out of a lab that’s been put forward is that it came in a city, Wuhan, where an institute was located. Well, that’s a lie. That is not the only coincidence that leads to this theory. What leads to this alternative hypothesis is the detailed research program the NIH funded that was underway in the years leading up to the outbreak. So I see the scientists absolutely trying to create a narrative and take our eyes off of another issue.

Next, he was asked about the research being undertaken in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

We know that at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the scientists there had been trained by American scientists to use advanced bioengineering methodologies. And in particular, we have scientists in North Carolina, Texas, and so forth who do this kind of research, believe in it, argue for it, and say that they don’t want any regulations on it and so on. And they were in close contact with Wuhan Institute of Virology, and they were part of a joint research group that was stitched together by something called EcoHealth Alliance. And EcoHealth Alliance was the kind of marriage maker between the American scientists and the Chinese scientists. That was the vehicle for funding from the U.S. government, especially from the National Institutes of Health, and especially from Tony Fauci’s unit, the NIAID.

When asked about EcoHealth Alliance, Professor Sachs admitted that he hired Peter Daszak to head the task force on the origins of Covid.

I thought, naively at the beginning, “Well, here’s a guy who is so connected, he would know.” And then I realized he was not telling me the truth. And it took me some months, but the more I saw it, the more I resented it.

And so I told him, “Look, you have to leave.” And then the other scientists in that task force attacked me for being anti-scientific. And I asked them: “What are your connections with all of this?” They didn’t tell me. Then when the Freedom of Information Act released some of these documents that NIH had been hiding from the public, I saw that people that were attacking me were also part of this thing. So I disbanded that whole task force. So my own experience was to witness close up how they’re not talking. And they’re trying to keep our eyes on something else. And away from even asking the questions that we’re talking about…

He [Peter Daszak] could have explained to me right from the beginning that there was a big research program and that they were manipulating the viruses, and here’s how. He could have given me the research proposals. And when I asked him for one of the research proposals, he said, “No, my lawyer says I can’t give it to you.” I said, “What? You’re heading a commission. We’re a transparent commission. You’re telling me your lawyer says you can’t give me your project proposal.” I said, “Well, then you can’t be on this commission. This is not even a close call.”

But there were so many other things. He was just filled with misdirection.

He concluded that we need far more oversight over Gain of Function work.

I can tell you one thing that I’ve learned from talking to a lot of scientists in the last couple of years: the technological capacity to do dangerous things using this biotechnology is extraordinary right now. So I want to know what’s being done. I want to know what other governments are doing, too, not just ours. I want some global control over this stuff.

Furthermore, he is disappointed with the information that, even he as the head of the commission, is able to obtain.

The most interesting things that I got as chair of the Lancet commission came from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits and whistleblower leaks from inside the U.S. government. Isn’t that terrible? NIH was actually asked at one point: give us your research program on SARS-like viruses. And you know what they did? They released the cover page and redacted 290 pages. They gave us a cover page and 290 blank pages! That’s NIH, for heaven’s sake. That’s not some corporation. That is the U.S. government charged with keeping us healthy.

A fascinating interview which I recommend you read in full.

August 6, 2022 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | 4 Comments

The extraordinary story of how patient access to COVID treatments were denied

Eventually involving witch hunts of physicians who dared to treat patients

By Meryl Nass, MD | February 11, 2022

In 2020, I compiled a list of over 50 ways authorities and pharma companies in multiple countries stopped the use of the chloroquine drugs for COVID. This was (and is) a stunning collection,which has been widely read and reproduced on many websites. When you read it, you are astounded to learn that all the US (and many international) public health agencies took many different actions to increase deaths and destruction from COVID and prolong the pandemic. “Avoiding the Trump drug” served as a great cover story. Taking hydroxychloroquine for COVID was equated to drinking bleach.

But here’s the kicker: the authorities knew all about chloroquine and other treatments for COVID before there was a COVID… because they had figured it out for the 2002 SARS epidemic and the 2012 MERS epidemic, both caused by related coronaviruses.  But they hushed it up.

Five CDC (US government) scientists published a paper, along with three Canadian government scientists, showing that chloroquine was an effective drug against SARS coronaviruses, in 2005. European scientists had shown the same thing in 2004.

Here is the CDC paper:

and here is its conclusion:

It looked very promising for both prevention and treatment of the first SARS.  After all, it has been used for many decades both to prevent and to treat malaria. (I took it for prevention, and later for treatment, 50 years ago.)

Nine years later, In 2014, scientists in Tony Fauci’s NIAID showed the same thing. Not only did chloroquine work in vitro against the MERS coronavirus, but dozens of existing drugs, which could have been tested in patients as soon as the pandemic started, were also effective against SARS and MERS coronaviruses.

Here is the paper from Fauci’s NIAID:

And this is what the NIAID authors said:

Here we found that 66 of the screened drugs were effective at inhibiting either MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV infection in vitro and that 27 of these compounds were effective against both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. These data demonstrate the efficiency of screening approved or clinically developed drugs for identification of potential therapeutic options for emerging viral diseases and also provide an expedited approach for supporting off-label use of approved therapeutics.

Just in case you think these papers were flukes, two unrelated  groups of European scientists found essentially the same thing. The 2014 European paper was published back to back with the NIAID paper above. I have cited the 2004 European paper elsewhere, and these citations can also be found in Bobby Kennedy’s book The Real Tony Fauci, which according to Amazon has now sold over 800,000 copies. Please read it. OTOH, If you are seeking misinformation on COVID, I’d recommend Fauci’s own book, Expect the Unexpected.

I have to repeat myself, because the information is so shocking and I don’t want you to miss it: our governments already knew of options for treating COVID before it appeared, but instead of immediately trying these already identified, safe, cheap, and available repurposed drugs, and offering early treatments, they did everything they could to stop people obtaining the chloroquine drugs. Look up the articles I linked to above. Read my long article on this suppression. Or the two articles I wrote here and here about how patients were administered borderline lethal doses of hydroxyhcloroquine to give the drug a black eye. Check the links. Verify that what I have just written is correct. Human beings planned and carried out these medical crimes against humanity. Who are those humans? What are they doing now?

This has to be be investigated and justice attained, to prevent such crimes from happening to patients ever again.

The “Why?” and “How could this be?!!” requires people to take a huge leap in order to understand the world we live in. Many don’t have the fortitude to dissect their world view and rebuild it in accord with the facts that have spilled out over the last two years.

But I am about to present some more facts that I hope you can assimilate into your understanding of the world. It might require a stiff drink, or perhaps some chocolate. Whatever it takes, read on, as it might save your life or someone else’s.

Ivermectin

Ivermectin had not been identified in the studies I mentioned above as a potentially useful coronavirus drug.

But some people knew it was likely to work in early 2020, because the French MedInCell company, supported by Bill Gates, was working on an injectable (which would make it patentable) version of ivermectin for COVID, issuing a press release about this on April 6, 2020 and an informational paper on April 23, 2020. There was a brief run on the veterinary drug at this time in the US, according to an FDA warning issued on April 10, 2020, indicating some people knew it might be an effective COVID treatment and were acquiring it. But there was not a lot of buzz and sales did not take off at that time.

Here is what FDA said on April 10, 2020:

FDA is concerned about the health of consumers who may self-medicate by taking ivermectin products intended for animals, thinking they can be a substitute for ivermectin intended for humans… Please help us protect public health by alerting FDA of anyone claiming to have a product to prevent or cure COVID-19 and to help safeguard human and animal health by reporting any of these products

In December 2020, a full eight months later, Ron Johnson held a Senate hearing that was focused on ivermectin’s benefits for COVID. Intensive care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory, originally a New Yorker, gave a particularly compelling speech. People began paying attention to the drug. YouTube then removed Kory’s speech–censoring a Senate hearing!

I think the authorities were initially scared to repeat the same tricks with ivermectin they had used to beat down the chloroquine drugs. And because ivermectin has efficacy late in the disease as well as at the start, and is not toxic at several times the normal dose, some of the tricks used against chloroquine (giving it too late in the disease course or overdosing patients) simply would not work with ivermectin. The authorities kept quiet.

But then ivermectin’s popularity started exploding. CDC published a report in late August showing that ivermectin prescriptions had quadrupled in a month, and the drug was now selling at 25 times the pre-COVID rate.

IVERMECTIN PRESCRIPTIONS SOLD by WEEK, 2019-21

“More than 88,000 prescriptions for the drug were filled by pharmacies in the week ending August 13, the CDC said in a report published August 26.” 

Apparently this terrified the powers-that-be. What if the pandemic got wiped out with ivermectin? It worked too well! Would that be the end of vaccine mandates, boosters, vaccine passports and digital IDs? The end of the Great Reset? Something had to be done, and fast. It had to be big. It had to be effective. They couldn’t simply take the drug off the market; that would require a long process and a paper trail.

What to do? There was probably only one option: Scare the pants off the doctors. Loss of license is the very worst thing you can do to a doctor. Threaten their licenses and they will immediately fall into line. You can’t get a prescription if there is no doctor to write it.

The method had been tested in the Philippines.

The powers-that-be could also scare the pharmacies. This required stealth. No paper trails. Intimidation was required, backed by a one-two punch: actually suspending doctors’  (annd maybe pharmacists’) licenses. You couple that with a huge media offensive, and threats from an industry of medical “non-profits.” You suddenly invent “misinformation” as a medical crime, studiously failing to define it. You make people think the legal prescribing of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine is a crime, even though off-label prescribing is entirely legal under the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Did Fauci give the order? Walensky? Acting FDA Commissioner Woodcock? It was probably some combination, plus the public relations professionals managing the messaging and the media.

Here’s what happened.

1. Senator Ben Ray Lujan (D, NM) and several other Senators introduced the “Health Misinformation Act” in July 2021 because “misinformation was putting lives at risk,” he said. A huge supporter of COVID vaccinations, the 49 year old Senator suffered a stroke on February 1, 2022.

2. The pharmacies suddenly could not get ivermectin from their wholesalers. No reason was given except ‘supply and demand.’ But it seemed the supply was cut off everywhere.  Ivermectin was dribbled out by the wholesalers, a few pills a week per pharmacy, not enough to supply even one prescription weekly. Some powerful entity presumably ordered the wholesalers to make the drug (practically) unavailable. With no shortages announced. I called the main manufacturer in the US, Edenbridge, and was told they were producing plenty.

Hydroxychloroquine had been restricted in a variety of ways, determined by each state, since early 2020. It had also been restricted by certain manufacturers in 2020. Suddenly, in September 2021, it too became considerably harder than it already was to obtain.

3. In late August, CDC sent out a major warning about ivermectin, but only gave 2 examples of anyone having a problem with the drug: one person overdosed on an animal version and one overdosed on ivermectin bought on the internet. This should not have been news. However, pharmacists and doctors read between the lines and knew this was code for “verboten.” Almost all stopped dispensing ivermectin at that time. It should be of interest to everyone that our health agencies now speak in coded messages to doctors and pharmacies, presumably to avoid putting their threats on paper and being accountable for them. What a way for government to do business.

4. Also last August, various “nonprofit” medical organizations started issuing warnings, in concert, regarding doctors prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, and spreading misinformation, especially about COVID vaccines. These organizations included the Federation of State Medical Boards, the American Medical Association, the American Pharmacy Association, and several specialty Boards. Here is an example of the AMA’s language:

“A handful of doctors spreading disinformation have fostered belief in scientifically unvalidated and potentially dangerous “cures” for COVID-19 while increasing vaccine hesitancy…”

These organizations told doctors they could lose their licenses or board certifications for such “crimes.” Mind you, none of these so-called nonprofit organizations has any regulatory authority. Nor do I believe they have any authority to claw back a Board Certification. They were blowing smoke. And they were probably paid to do so. Who paid?

5. Over the course of 3 days at the end of August, national media reported on 4 doctors in 3 states whose Boards were investigating them for the use of ivermectin.

Hawaii’s Medical Board went after Hawaii’s chief medical officer:

The Hawaii Medical Board has filed complaints against Maui’s top health official and a Valley Isle physician following reports that they backed COVID-19 treatments that state and federal health agencies advise against.

They really wanted to make an example by going after the state’s chief medical officer, who had had the guts to treat COVID patients. Clearly the orders are coming from high up on the food chain.

Here were some of the other August headlines about doctors who legally prescribed a fully approved drug off-label:

6. The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) is an organization that assists 71 state and territorial medical boards with policies, training, etc. Members pay dues and the organization accepts donations. It has its own foundation, too. Its President earns close to $1,000,000/year, not bad for a backwater administrative job at an organization headquartered in Euless, Texas. After the FSMB instructed its members that misinformation was a crime, somewhere between 8 and 15 of its member boards began to take action.  (Media have reported that 8, 12 or 15 boards of its 71 member Boards did so, according to the FSMB, which is closely monitoring this.)

7. On February 7, 2022 the Department of Homeland Security issued its own dire warning about the spread of misinformation, disinformation and a neologism, malinformation.

“The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence. Mass casualty attacks and other acts of targeted violence conducted by lone offenders and small groups acting in furtherance of ideological beliefs and/or personal grievances pose an ongoing threat to the nation.

Thus it appears that Misinformation and Disinformation have been selected to play an important role in a newly developing narrative, as the Pandemic restrictions and narrative come to an end.

8. I presume the majority of the 71 Medical Boards’ attorneys knew something about the Constitution, knew that every American has an inalienable right to freedom of speech, and simply ignored the FSMB’s exhortation to go after misinformatin spreaders. The Maine Board, however, went along. Three doctors in Maine have recently had their licenses suspended or threatened for writing waivers for COVID vaccines, spreading misinformation, and/or prescribing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. (All three of which are legal activities for doctors.). But Boards have broad powers to intervene, and are shielded from liability as agents of the state. So they went after a chronic Lyme doctor several years ago, who found, as expected, that it would be too onerous to fight back, and he gave up his license.

9. Here is what the Board claims about me:

“The board noted that Ivermectin isn’t Food and Drug Administration “authorized or approved” as a treatment for COVID-19 in the suspension order.”

“The board said that her continuing to practice as a physician “constitutes an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of the public who might receive her medical services, and that it is necessary to immediately suspend her ability to practice medicine in order to adequately respond to this risk.”’

I am 70 years old, and my medical practice was set up as a service, so that everyone could access COVID drugs who wanted them. My fee was $60 per patient for all the COVID care they needed.

I am sure the Board had calculated that given all the above, I would not challenge the Board’s suspension and would simply surrender my license, since it would probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the Board’s actions in court.

On the day my license was suspended, there was massive national publicity about my case. The story was on the AP wire, covered from the San Francisco Chronicle to the Miami Herald. And for some reason, it was not behind the usual paywall. The Hill, Newsweek, the Daily Beast and many other publications all ran hit pieces about me.

I realized that my situation was bigger than just a Maine issue: it had been selected to serve as an example to physicians nationwide who might be thinking for themselves and prescribing early treatment for COVID. Once I realized I was to be made an example of, as part of a national purge of doctors who think independently, I decided to fight back. Fortunately, Children’s Health Defense is helping with my legal expenses, which is what allows me to mount a strong attack against the bulldozing of free speech, patient autonomy and the doctor-patient relationship. Please join me in the fight!

February 11, 2022 Posted by | Book Review | , , | 1 Comment