The War with Medical Fascism

[Crafty_Dog]

 

[Crafty_Dog]

https://x.com/euphorio_/status/1859784499984474327

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/breaking-okeefe-media-group-nih-chief-confesses-covid/

[Crafty_Dog]

Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 3247
View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Congressional AAR of Covid Pandemic
« Reply #2129 on: Today at 11:46:38 AM »
QuoteModifyRemoveSplit Topic
And it does name some names:

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024.12.04-SSCP-FINAL-REPORT-ANS.pdf

[Crafty_Dog]

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) extended liability protections for producers of COVID-19 vaccines through 2029. HHS said the liability shield extension is necessary because of the “credible risk” that COVID-19 will remain a public health risk in the future. The liability shield also protects healthcare professionals who prescribed or administered COVID-19 vaccines. (This is likely another instance of “Trump proofing” by federal agencies, intended to tie up any legal actions from the Trump administration or conservatives in the courts until Trump leaves office. – R.C.)

[DougMacG]

Once again, a "contract" is made by a party that has no authority to bind the government beyond Jan 19, 2025.

I would like to see a court review of this type of arrangement.

[Crafty_Dog]

RSV Vaccines for Children: Still Crazy After All These Years
Vaccine-enhanced disease raises its ugly head again. When will they ever learn?
Robert W Malone MD, MS
Dec 14

 

Stories matter; they form the foundations for how we define ourselves and our relationship with the world. Over time, fact-based stories are often transformed into myths. There are stories that define the public perception of vaccinology and the practitioners of this art. The mythic genius and heroics of Edward Jenner, involving clear-skinned milkmaids, cowpox, and the Smallpox vaccine, is the origin myth for modern western vaccinology. The competitive race between Drs. Salk and Sabin to save the world’s children from Polio is another.

But vaccinology also has its dark stories. The approved COVID vaccine narrative that will pass down through time is still either disputed or being negotiated, depending on your point of view, but I suspect history will not be kind to Operation Warp Speed and its gene therapy-based prophylactics that prevented neither infection nor disease from SARS-CoV-2. Unfortunately, these products did cause myocarditis, stroke, a variety of blood clotting disorders, and at this point, God only knows how many other problems, including both sudden and delayed death. Most vaccinologists are still in denial about the facts of this story.

The first licensed rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn in 1999, within a year following FDA authorization and introduction, due to its association with a complication called intussusception in which a vaccinated child’s bowel would sort of fold into itself, a tube within a tube, resulting in life-threatening intestinal blockage. Left untreated, this leads to a horrible, painful death. The subsequently developed vaccine is less frequently associated with intussusception than the first, and remains on the market. The latter was developed in part by Dr. Paul Offit, and is the basis of his claim to vaccine expertise and fame. The Rotavirus vax story embodies the ever-present risks of an unpredicted vaccine-associated disease that provides a dark warning to vaccine developers (and regulatory authorities) worldwide. No wonder vaccine developers insist on legal protection from liability if they are to continue to participate in the business.

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccines for Children and Infants
Historically, the darkest story for vaccinology (prior to the genetic COVID vaccines) involves the Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) candidate that actually enhanced RSV disease risk and killed children during clinical trials. This was an unexpected and unanticipated severe adverse event. Every vaccine developer knows the story, and this cautionary tale hovers like a dark shadow in the minds of all except the most florid vaccine development “true believer” fanatics. During prior pediatric RSV vaccine development, vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD) was unexpectedly observed, including two toddler deaths, following administration of “old school” formalin-inactivated respiratory syncytial virus (FI-RSV) vaccines to infants in the 1960s (Fulginiti, 1969; Kapikian, 1969; Kim, 1969). This tragic and unexpected finding stalled RSV vaccine development for many years.

Fulginiti VA, Eller JJ, Sieber OF, et al. Respiratory virus immunization. I. A field trial of two inactivated respiratory virus vaccines; an aqueous trivalent parainfluenza virus vaccine and an alum-precipitated respiratory syncytial virus vaccine. Am J Epidemiol. 1969 Apr;89(4):435–448.

Kapikian AZ, Mitchell RH, Chanock RM, et al. An epidemiologic study of altered clinical reactivity to respiratory syncytial (RS) virus infection in children previously vaccinated with an inactivated RS virus vaccine. Am J Epidemiol. 1969 Apr;89(4):405–421.

A cautionary parable is often shared between all drug and biologics investigators who work with animal models, particularly among vaccine developers. Mice lie, monkeys mislead, and the only animal model that reliably predicts human responses (safety and efficacy) is humans. Fortunately or unfortunately, the world of vaccinology and vaccine development has just been dealt another reminder of this fundamental truth. And as if Moderna and its much-celebrated Nobel Prize-winning mRNA technology has been at the center of this latest debacle which is being spun as a conundrum.

“This all seems like an incredible conundrum with lots of unanswered questions remaining—lots to still learn,” Henry Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, told a reporter from Fierce Pharma.

After hearing presentations from Moderna on its trial findings and from the FDA, the advisory committee members generally agreed that RSV shots for infants should be examined on a “vaccine platform-by-vaccine platform basis,” according to Arnold Monto, M.D., an epidemiology professor at the University of Michigan. ….. Monto, for one, said that he believes the safety signal is legitimate and it deserves more study. The answers, he said, will not emerge if companies and regulators “shut down programs.” “Either we go forward very carefully with clinical trials where we may be able to get an answer or we continue to observe natural infection in which over 50 odd years we haven’t really been able to identify anything that would helps us in answering the questions that are currently being raised.”

From a summary published by BioSpace:

Moderna’s mRNA-1345 won the FDA’s approval in May for use in adults aged 60 years and above, and is being marketed under the brand name mRESVIA. The company was also previously developing the shot for use in infants, but dropped this program in September, according to reporting by Endpoints News. According to the biotech’s website, mRNA-1345 continues to move forward in high-risk adults aged 18 to 59 years, and in a pediatric population.

Meanwhile, mRNA-1365 is being developed as a combination vaccine for RSV and the human metapneumovirus. The candidate is currently in a Phase I study in this indication.

In its briefing document, the FDA revealed that in one study, inoculation with mRNA-1365 led to a case of severe or very severe RSV LRTI in the subgroup of participants aged 8 months to less than 24 months. In a younger subpopulation—aged 5 months to less than 8 months—five such side effects were reported after mRNA-1635 administration.

Moderna was made aware that there were at least two positive RSV LRTI tests in the study by July 17, triggering one of the study’s pause criterion. A few days later, Moderna enacted a “study-wide pause,” according to the briefing document, amid its ongoing safety investigation.

These new safety data come as a blow to Moderna, which was already struggling to find its footing in the RSV vaccine space, where it is in third place. GSK became the frontrunner in this field when it won the FDA’s first approval in May 2023 for Arexvy, which has since gone on to corner around two-thirds of all retail RSV vaccinations in the U.S.

Pfizer has fallen to second place with its Abrysvo, though recent approvals in a broader adult population and in immunocompromised adults could help the pharma shore up sales for its shot.

Why the emphasis on vaccinating infants and young children for prevention of RSV-associated disease?

Like SARS-CoV-2, influenza, bacterial pneumonia, mycoplasma and other upper respiratory infections, RSV disease is associated with an increased risk of death in the elderly. In adults and older, healthy children, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) symptoms are mild and typically mimic the common cold. Self-care measures are usually all that's needed to relieve any discomfort.

RSV can cause severe infection in some people, including babies 12 months and younger (infants), especially premature infants, older adults, people with heart and lung disease, or anyone with a weak immune system (immunocompromised). Severe RSV disease is associated with a range of symptoms, including upper respiratory disease that can progress to lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD), leading to respiratory distress, respiratory failure, and death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends RSV vaccines for adults aged 75 and older, and those aged 60-74 with risk factors for severe RSV disease, such as chronic heart or lung disease, weakened immune system, diabetes, or living in a nursing home. Vaccinating these high-risk individuals to reduce their chance of dying from or with RSV pneumonia appears to make sense - there is a positive benefit/risk ratio for people in this category. Apparently, because all of these elderly have been previously infected with RSV and therefore have been immunologically “imprinted,” they are not at risk for developing VAERD - or at least that is the hypothesis. That said, there is no evidence to suggest that the adult RSV vaccines prevent transmission of RSV to others. The vaccines are designed to protect the individual who receives them from developing severe illness if they contract RSV, rather than preventing transmission to others. If you are not at risk of severe disease or death from RSV infection, there is no reason for you to take these vaccines. As with any vaccine there is risk, but in the case of RSV vaccines administered to healthy adults and children over two years, no apparent benefit. Frankly, if your physician or pharmacist recommends accepting an RSV vaccine and you are not in the CDC-recommended high-risk groups, you should find another physician or pharmacist, as yours is probably accepting some sort of enticement to make such a recommendation. Financial enticements for physicians and pharmacists to recommend vaccination are common in the industry.

By the age of two years old, virtually all children have been infected with RSV, and develop some degree of natural immunity to subsequent RSV infection. This immunity is not “sterilizing” or perfect. Those that have been infected with RSV are often infected again, but develop a less clinically significant or even clinically “silent” infection. Previously infected healthy normal children and adults can be infected with RSV, and can infect others, but rarely develop clinically significant disease. This fact demonstrates that it is unlikely that a vaccine that prevents infection and spread of RSV can be developed; as with influenza (and coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2), a vaccine that reduces disease severity may be possible, it is difficult or unlikely that one could develop a vaccine that will be more effective than natural infection, and extremely unlikely that a vaccine to prevent infection or spread can be achieved. As healthy normal children older than 2 years are not at significant risk of RSV disease (due to universal natural immunity at that age) if they receive an RSV vaccine there is only risk of vaccine-associated adverse events- no probability of any significant benefit. Current RSV vaccines do not prevent infection or spread, and it is highly unlikely that a RSV vaccine could be developed to prevent infection or spread since natural immunity does not confer sterilizing protection.

That said, RSV infection and disease notoriously kills premature infants and the very young at a relatively high frequency. The immune systems and lungs of these children, particularly premature infants, are still developing, and by definition they do not have the benefit of having natural immunity from a prior RSV infection.

At the root of this is that the immunology that underlies the development of RSV vaccine VAERD in infants and young children is not well understood. One leading hypothesis for RSV VAERD is that the folding of a key RSV protein found in the original formalin-inactivated vaccine, upon injection, results in formation of antibodies that act to enhance RSV infection in some way. You may recall that the FDA was concerned about this same possibility occurring with the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines, as it had repeatedly compromised prior coronavirus vaccine development programs. Something about having a natural RSV infection seems to prevent this process - the current hypothesis invokes the vague term “immune imprinting,” which is not the same as actually understanding what is going on.

In the case of the Moderna vaccine candidate, based on the spectrum of adverse events associated with the Moderna and Bio N Tech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines, it is possible that the increased disease signal detected in these recent RSV vaccine studies in children may include additional toxicities associated with the Moderna mRNA platform technology.

Because there is a market (unmet medical need) for RSV vaccines, years of animal model experiments were performed to try to better understand and predict the cause, consequence, and prevention of VAERD associated with RSV vaccines. What has been demonstrated in the intervening years is that if you (or an experimental animal) have previously been “naturally” infected with RSV, then your chances of developing VAERD plummet. There is something that happens, some form of immune imprinting (?), that happens with natural infection that prevents this. But, of course, the important clinical need is to protect premature and newborn infants that have not been infected previously!

So, what is an obstetrician or pediatrician to do?

Many years ago, a spinout corporation with roots in US Army infectious disease research programs called “Medimmune” came up with an answer. A monoclonal antibody directed against RSV, which was FDA authorized and is now widely available and standard of care in premature infants. Since that initial product, another has been developed which may have some useful advantages. But the bottom line seems to be that these products, when used as directed, greatly reduce the risk of developing severe disease if the infant is infected with RSV. According to the FDA briefing document Considerations for Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccine Safety in Pediatric Populations, “Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) with activity against RSV are a critical element of a preventive strategy in infants; however, availability and cost may limit global implementation.” Therefore, the justification for developing an RSV vaccine for neonates, the only major unmet medical need, distills down to a problem of “global implementation.” In other words, there could be a market in economically underdeveloped regions (where things like malnutrition and clean water are a much more compelling, clear and present danger to neonates), but in the developed world one can administer monoclonal antibody preparations.

Which leads to suspicions that there is some other commercial agenda here driving Moderna to try to push its RSV product down into children. Such as the indemnification that would be associated with getting the product authorized for the pediatric schedule and the Federal government vaccines for children acquisition program.

The bottom line is that there is not a clear, compelling clinical need for an RSV vaccine for children- who have universal immunity, let alone for neonates. Why should we continue to pursue clinical testing of these products in neonates when every child enrolled in such clinical trials will be at risk of VAERD due to some poorly understood mechanism? This has all the hallmarks of another example of an industry that has become enthralled with its own narrative of the power of its technology to solve all related infectious disease problems, and is willing to pursue every potential indication and market opportunity at the expense of humanity.

If I were the incoming Director of CDC or Commissioner of the FDA, I know what I would do about this. I would just say no.

For those seeking additional details and information, I strongly recommend the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting briefing document of December 12, 2024. I have served on many large Federal grant and contract study sections addressing RSV vaccine development, and have read extensively on the subject. I have rarely, if ever, read such a well-written and generally objective summary of the history and state of the art of this domain as the corresponding sections of this document. Whomever at FDA was responsible for preparing this document deserves a hearty “thank you” from all concerned, and their diligence was rewarded by the reasonable and responsible conclusions reached by the VRBPAC in this case.

I only wish similar depth, accuracy and objectivity had characterized the various briefing documents developed and presented in the context of the Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J COVID “vaccine” products. If this had been the case, we might have had a very different outcome.

[Body-by-Guinness]

I suspect incompetence owns a piece of this, but for all the noise they made you'd think they could lay their hands on this stuff:

CDC can't substantiate COVID vaccine ingredient claims, FDA forced to turn over Pfizer data

New dashboard lets users search free-text fields from vaccine-injury data the CDC tried to hide. Louisiana ditches "one-size-fits-all paternalistic guidance" on vaccinations, urges doctor-patient decisionmaking.

Federal public health agencies are known for black-and-white public service announcements that portray their favorite COVID-19 treatments as universally beneficial without providing supporting data, particularly the effectiveness of each new vaccine formulation.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner-nominee Marty Makary once accused the current officeholder, Robert Califf, of wildly exaggerating data in claiming that since-rescinded bivalent vaccines, which targeted two COVID strains, showed a "significant reduction in hospitalization and death in all populations examined, which is clinically meaningful."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which similarly claims COVID vaccines are safer than infections for all populations, has now been caught empty-handed when asked for data to support its claim, on the same "myths and facts" page, that "nearly all the ingredients" in the therapeutics are found "in many foods – fats, sugars, and salts."

The Informed Consent Action Network and Mississippi Medical Professionals for Informed Consent filed a Freedom of Information Act request for all documents including "studies, journal articles, manufacturer data, etc." that are "sufficient to show the foods that contain the same ingredients as those found in the COVID19 vaccines" to verify the CDC's claim.

They also asked for data on foods that contain the ingredients listed in the vaccine inserts, in another five FOIA requests: "recombinant spike protein from the SARS-CoV-2 virus … nucleoside-modified messenger RNA  …extracts from the soapbark tree" and exotic-sounding chemicals such as "methyl-α-D-mannopyranoside," and evidence that the body responds the same to an ingredient whether eaten or injected.

The CDC's response to the broadest request? Its National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases does not have "any documents pertaining to your request."

The FOIA officer told the entities to ask the FDA for the data because "the subject matter expert notes that ingredients in specific vaccines fall under the responsibility of the FDA," and also told them how to appeal the agency's response up the FOIA command chain.

"Typically, if one agency points us to another, ICAN will have us submit the same requests to that other agency although here, ICAN was questioning the evidence justifying a statement on CDC’s own website so it’s unclear why CDC would have no records yet FDA would have them," ICAN's lawyer Elizabeth Brehm told Just the News in an email.

She shared the agency's responses to all six FOIAs, which gave the same no-records response but also cited various CDC and FDA pages, including kinds of vaccine ingredients and examples, such as the stabilizer gelatin and "residual inactivating ingredient" formaldehyde, and a long explanation of why certain ingredients are in vaccines.

"CDC’s approach to truth and data is a joke," Brehm's colleague Aaron Siri, who leads the effort, wrote on X. ICAN alleged the agency's shrugging response shows it's violating the Information Quality Act by not being able to "substantiate the quality of the information it has disseminated."

The CDC didn't respond to Just the News queries.

The agency's inability to back up its public messaging comes as the feds continue hiding safety data, healthcare workers worldwide express hesitancy toward COVID vaccines and some state public health agencies ditch one-size-fits-all recommendations.

Another FOIA filer beat the FDA this month, with a federal judge ordering the agency to produce its emergency use authorization file on the Pfizer COVID vaccine by June 30, 2025.

The FDA argued the EUA file isn't covered by Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency's FOIA request for the "biological product file" in the formal application for licensing, but U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman quoted its own press release on the vaccine's formal approval, which said it used and builds on the EUA's data.

The Biden administration pulled out all the stops to delay the release of the FDA's COVID vaccine safety data that are kept apart from the public Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, in response to Just the News litigation.

The docket shows the feds secured a stay of the proceedings before Donald Trump's election victory. The case is scheduled to resume five months into the second Trump administration.

ICAN recently launched a dashboard for searching the "free-text" entries from the CDC's v-safe surveys for the earliest COVID vaccine recipients, which the feds unsuccessfully fought to withhold for a year after turning over the "checkbox" answers from v-safe.

It took months longer to get the complete data, "with additional fields that allow us to see the date of injection, the number of days after injection each reaction was reported, and the MedDRA codes assigned for each reported reaction (a standardized coding system to classify medical events) along with every free text entry," ICAN said.

A relatively young National Institutes of Health branch director recently admitted in undercover video that he wouldn't get an updated vaccine because it would "increase my risk for the known myocarditis," questioned whether COVID vaccination "does anything" and suspected vaccines were rushed to full approval in 2021 to justify boosters.

A newly published survey of 7,000 healthcare workers in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, the United States and the United Kingdom, found a fifth had "strong or moderate" COVID vaccine hesitancy.

The most likely to be hesitant were midwives, followed by nutritionists, pharmacists, nursing professionals and public health professionals, according to the study in the journal Public Health. Large majorities believe "side effects were minimised by pharmaceutical companies" (67%) and public authorities (64%).

Louisiana joined Florida by dropping what its Department of Health calls "one-size-fits-all paternalistic guidance" and adopting a "more informative approach" that promotes individuals making decisions "in consultation with their doctor."

While Surgeon General Ralph Abraham, who partly oversees the agency, "has expressed personal concerns about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine," the department believes immunization, mask-wearing and social distancing "are an individual’s personal choice," the statement reads.

It is shifting to public health priorities that were "often deprioritized during the pandemic," including overdoses, maternal mortality and chronic disease.

NPR said four LDH employees confirmed that officials told "high-level managers" at a November meeting that they weren't allowed to promote COVID, flu or monkeypox vaccines in any way, from press releases and interviews to vaccination offerings at LDH clinics.

https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/cdc-cant-substantiate-covid-vaccine-ingredient-claims-fda-forced-turn?utm_medium=social_media&utm_source=facebook_social_icon&utm_campaign=social_icons&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3SvHefNZSLjNoY6mvdTQj1boVZlWNxtdnbfaFjpT46EHevSClgHAulBjk_aem_HEt_B8rly-FNmnhngBRCuQ

[Body-by-Guinness]

Interesting tact suggested here for having a dose of accountability land on Fauci:

https://pjmedia.com/benbartee/2024/12/30/help-get-this-simple-fauci-prosecution-playbook-to-trump-please-n4935517?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3d2yTMm0i2EnncqR_RBw3M5erQiA1Q8b-cFh5DSVxGaxGhqYY6o0FdSQw_aem_KCw2pVx8UTvPce8UwYhpmQ#google_vignette

[Crafty_Dog]

Posting this elsewhere:

[Crafty_Dog]

https://blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/exclusive-fda-lab-uncovers-excess?utm_source=cross-post&publication_id=1044435&post_id=150972780&utm_campaign=583200&isFreemail=true&r=z2120&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

[Crafty_Dog]

https://kirschsubstack.com/p/pfizers-secret-documents-reveal-that

[Body-by-Guinness]

Biden pardons Fauci to avoid a deeper dive into the whys and wherefores of Covid. That war should be engaged in nonetheless, IMO:

Why Joe Biden Had to Pardon Anthony Fauci
Dr. Anthony Fauci watches on during a press conference
               ES             
Lee esto en Español
Tags:
Big Government,
Bureaucracy and Regulation,
Law,
Media and Culture
01/22/2025
•
Mises Wire
•
Connor O'Keeffe
Print this page
On Monday, in their final hours in office, former President Biden’s team chose to issue a blanket pardon to a number of close political allies and family members. Among that group was former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci.

Fauci was pardoned “for any offense against the United States which he may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through the date of [the] pardon” relating in any way to his time as NIAID Director, on the White House Coronavirus Task Force, the White House covid-19 response team, or as Biden’s Chief Medical Advisor.

In the letter explaining the pardons, Biden defended the choice, saying, “baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families.” Even when those individuals have done nothing wrong, Biden’s ghostwriters reason, “the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.”

Setting aside the fact that this was the exact tactic the political establishment used to try and tarnish Trump’s reputation, it’s revealing that the primary public reason presented for the pardons was to avoid investigations.

There are, of course, plenty of unseemly details about Fauci’s career that the political establishment would not like to see resurface in either the court of law or the court of public opinion. Many were detailed in RFK Jr.’s book The Real Anthony Fauci, such as the secretive and deadly drug experiments on hundreds of HIV-positive foster children at New York City’s Incarnation Children’s Center between 1988 and 2002 and the experiment that locked the heads of Beagle puppies into cages full of flesh-eating insects.

If Fauci had come under the federal government’s microscope, episodes like those could have done much to stain the name of the man Biden recently dubbed “a true hero.”

The same goes for Fauci’s completely inaccurate projection of the danger posed by a strain of swine flu in the 1970s, along with the millions of dollars of damages the government had to pay out due to injuries sustained in the related swine flu vaccine experiments.

Fauci also made similar failed projections relating to the 2005 bird flu, the 2009 swine flu, and the 2016 Zika virus. In all these cases, the virus was nowhere near as dangerous as Fauci had claimed it would be. But his warnings did result in his department and other parts of Washington’s public health bureaucracy getting billions of dollars in new funding.

Of course, these episodes pale in comparison to what Fauci is now most famous for: overseeing the covid pandemic.

Early on, Fauci famously explained on TV that cloth masks cannot stop people infected with covid from filling the air around them with virus particles. He then completely reversed his stance and advocated for universal masking and government mask mandates.

He later claimed his earlier comments on television had been lies meant to trick the public into not buying masks to protect the supply of masks for healthcare workers who, in fact, used a different kind of mask. He then acted confused when much of the public stopped trusting him.

Fauci also went on record in early April 2020 calling for nationwide lockdowns—something he would later deny doing. When some states like Florida started to reopen months later, Fauci warned the governors they were taking “a really significant risk.”

It quickly became obvious to anyone who was actually looking that Fauci was completely wrong about the effectiveness of masking and lockdowns. But Fauci ignored the data and kept pushing for these measures into 2021, after the vaccines had become available.

Another fact that had become obvious early in the pandemic was that children posed little risk of contracting and spreading covid. Yet, Fauci pushed for school closures and later school masking long after both were clearly shown to be unnecessary.

Finally, Fauci made several high-profile claims about the covid vaccines that would quickly prove false.

But making bad projections and giving bad advice isn’t a crime. So why was the political class worried about Fauci being investigated by the Department of Justice? Because a federal investigation would likely have related to the speculation that Fauci played a role in bringing the pandemic about in the first place.

One controversial method for studying viruses involves artificially making the virus more transmissible or virulent. This so-called “gain-of-function” research allows for virus mutation or possible treatments to be analyzed much more quickly, but it brings the risk of a much more dangerous genetically-engineered virus infecting people if a sample leaks out.

We know that an NGO that gets funding from Fauci’s department bankrolled gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the laboratory in Wuhan, China, in 2017 and 2018. And that the same NGO had received federal funding while conducting gain-of-function research going back to 2014, when a three-year ban on using federal funds for such experiments had been implemented and when Fauci’s pardon happens to come into effect.

While there is no evidence that these experiments are related to the coronavirus that would eventually spread out of Wuhan in late 2019 and early 2020, there is still much we do not know about the extent of US involvement in similar experiments at the Wuhan lab around the time covid started to spread.

That fact, paired with the panicked and secretive behavior of Fauci and his colleagues after the first reports of covid started to emerge, has raised suspicion about the possibility of US government involvement in covid’s origin. Biden’s DOJ refused to investigate these matters. But after Senator Rand Paul got Fauci to explicitly deny, under oath, that his department had funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, an investigation into the truth of the claim to determine if Fauci had committed perjury remained a possibility.

That was until Biden pardoned him Monday morning.

A federal investigation would have all but forced the media to revisit many of Fauci’s unseemly actions, failures, and possible crimes. That would have been uncomfortable for a political establishment that has embraced and celebrated Fauci for decades.

But the real danger of a high-profile Fauci investigation, from the political class’s perspective, would come if the public started to ask themselves why a bureaucrat with such a long track record of failure was embraced and celebrated by those in power. And why he enjoyed so much professional success before retiring with a net worth of more than $11 million.

Such questions could lead people to consider that maybe the decades of mistakes that transferred hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to public health agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and the crony healthcare system as a whole were not mistakes after all. That, perhaps, the federal public health apparatus is nothing more than a racket and that officials are professionally rewarded, not for keeping us safe, but for protecting and expanding that racket.

Those are the questions that could well have arisen had a federal investigation prompted a retrospective and examination of the career and conduct of Anthony Fauci. And that is why Biden had no choice but to pardon him.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-joe-biden-had-pardon-anthony-fauci

[Crafty_Dog]

Doubling up BBG's post here as well:

===================

This could live more than one place, but given the censorship angle, here will do:

Covid censorship and the shame of supine doctors
By
Jim Tumilty
-
January 20, 2025
 
THE inquiry into the disaster inflicted on the United Kingdom following the emergence, or possibly release, of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has ground its glacial route to the most important issue, that of how those killed and severely injured by the so-called vaccine have been ignored and vilified by a large proportion of their fellow countrymen. This is what Module Four of the Covid Inquiry ‘Looking at Vaccines and Therapeutics’ which opened last week should be about. That Dr Rosalind Jones and several leading medics and science critics of the novel mRNA and RNA vaccine rollouts and especially of the regulatory authority, the MHRA, have not been called to give evidence, throws that into doubt.

Anna Morris KC, who is representing family groups injured by the jab and made her second appearance before the Hallett Inquiry last week, made the issue of censorship central to her opening statement. She recalled YouTube’s censorship of her preliminary statement to Baroness Hallett in September 2023 (reported by TCW here and here). It had left many of those attending in tears, laying bare the truth that so many have tried to suppress – of suicide, disability and death, the youngest victim being 14 and oldest 76, all caused by serious adverse reactions to Covid vaccinations. ‘The treatment of the vaccine-injured in this country historically been a source of shame,’ she had said. YouTube were not going to share those revelations.

In her preliminary submission last Tuesday, the opening day of this module, speaking once more on behalf of just a tiny proportion of the millions who have suffered harm, Anna Morris told the judge that ‘the inquiry must understand the stigma and censorship for the vaccine-injured and bereaved’. She reported a poll of all family members which found that 74 per cent had been censored when talking about vaccines on social media. She also reported how doctors were instructed to keep their concerns from the public, including from their own patients.

The only thing missing from this presentation was any call for immediate withdrawal of these products to prevent further harm being caused in the next decade or so, by which time no doubt this report will have quietly been put away in a bottom drawer.

No right-thinking person listening to Morris could be in any doubt about the industrial-strength censorship that allowed this travesty to occur. While the government, pharmaceutical companies and the regulators could perhaps be expected to follow their chosen route and to deny and hide their mistakes, what was most telling, and profoundly disappointing, was the action she described taken by the medical profession on the front line.

With any new treatment side-effects are certain. The patient leaflet included with the medication says so. When a new treatment is used on such a scale as were these creations, it is vital that side-effects be promptly reported to allow rapid understanding and decision-making. Lives depend on it. In the event some 2,700 ‘fatal outcomes’ of the covid vaccines have been reported.  We have the Yellow Card scheme to allow these reports. But they have been ignored by the Public Health authorities, the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Executive of the NHS downwards and by medical professionals too. It needs to be stated clearly that the reporting of vaccine side-effects is not an optional task. When they give a treatment, whether a drug, a vaccine or any other intervention, they have a moral duty to monitor it and report any problems. It horrifies me to think that many of our GPs have never heard of, or used, the Yellow Card scheme. Are we to believe that they have never seen an adverse effect? Or is it simply that they choose not to?

The problem has been shown to be even deeper. Since the start of the rollout, doctors’ professional bodies and other medical organisations have steadfastly denied any link between injections and problems. Patients who have begged for help have been ignored or accused of having mental disorders. Doctors speaking out have been censored and struck off, ensuring that most remain quiet. The tyranny continues with the GMC calling the shots.

The inquiry addressed this as a problem or result of not wishing to contribute to vaccine ‘hesitancy’. But what they are facing now is no longer hesitancy, rather the start of patients’ outright refusal to co-operate due entirely to doctors’ refusal to listen to real concerns.

This is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg as trust in vaccines has been all but destroyed. The current crop of mRNA offerings deserve nothing else than public scepticism. Even many of the ‘traditional’ vaccines, it is transpiring, came with far more risks than was ever acknowledged, an issue that needs separate study. But of immediate concern in medicine today are the plummeting levels of trust in doctors as a profession. They are victims of their own naivety. Many now see what was done and regret it, but remain quiet. Many still don’t see or don’t care. Or still post lies about the few who try to make the truth known.

The covid event is a medical disaster that was, by and large, self-inflicted. Doctors hid behind telephones and denied treatment to injured patients. They refused to believe the evidence of their own eyes. They attacked their colleagues and still do. They put the perceived status of the profession above their duty of care. The dearth of doctors signing the Hope Accord, which calls for the immediate suspension of all covid mRNA vaccine products, tells its own story.

GP practices may still be earning their pieces of silver by injecting the now proven deadly genetic treatments. In truth it has cost them dearly. They have lost the trust and respect of the nation.

Tumilty is a 72-year-old retired engineer living in North East England after a career in the manufacturing industry (when we still had one). He has used the last five years to research the background and responses to the ‘pandemic’.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/covid-censorship-and-the-shame-of-supine-doctors/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2025-01-26/back-against-wall-cia-admits-covid-likely-emerged-wuhan-lab

[Body-by-Guinness]

Hmm, seems authoritative concerns re vaccines have been around since … Reagan:

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-99th-congress-that-called-vaccines-unavoidably-unsafe/

[Crafty_Dog]

https://kirschsubstack.com/p/czech-republic-data-vaccinated-women?utm_medium=android&triedRedirect=true