So this is where the loons get their junk science. The Case for Wearing Masks Forever.
Now we know why extremists that follow the fauch ,were always attacking scientists from the Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, AMA, and other main stream medical sources. They are following A ragtag coalition of public-health activists who believe that America’s pandemic restrictions are too lax—and they say they have the science to prove it.
Mindy Thompson Fullilove, a professor of urban policy and health at the New School who is Black, has spent her career studying epidemics: first aids, then crack, then multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. She has seen how disease can ravage cities, especially in Black and working-class communities. From the beginning, Fullilove was skeptical of how the federal government handled the coronavirus pandemic. But these new recommendations from the C.D.C., she said, were “flying in the face of the science.” Not long after the announcement, she sent an e-mail to a Listserv called The Spirit of 1848, for progressive public-health practitioners. “Can we have a people’s CDC and give people good advice?” she asked. A flurry of responses came back. And what did the CDC recommend?
Last December, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that it was shortening the recommended isolation period for those with covid-19 to five days. Getting exposed to the virus no longer meant that people needed to quarantine, either, as long as they were fully vaccinated and wore a mask.
What emerged was the People’s C.D.C.: a ragtag coalition of academics, doctors, activists, and artists who believe that the government has left them to fend for themselves against covid-19. As governments, schools, and businesses have scaled back their covid precautions, the members of the People’s C.D.C. have made it their mission to distribute information about the pandemic—what they see as real information, as opposed to what’s circulated by the actual C.D.C.
They believe the C.D.C.’s data and guidelines have been distorted by powerful forces with vested interests in keeping people at work and keeping anxieties about the pandemic down. “The public has a right to a sound reading of the data that’s not influenced by politics and big business,” Fullilove said.
And then there are masks. The People’s C.D.C. strongly supports mask mandates, and they have called on federal, state, and local governments to put them back in place, arguing that “the vaccine-only strategy promoted by the CDC is insufficient.” The group has noted that resistance to masks is most common among white people: Lucky Tran, who organizes the coalition’s media team, recently tweeted a YouGov survey supporting this, and wrote that “a lot of anti-mask sentiment is deeply embedded in white supremacy.”
When the pandemic hit, America needed someone to turn to for advice. The media and public naturally looked to Dr. Anthony Fauci—the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, an esteemed laboratory immunologist and one of President Donald Trump‘s chosen COVID advisers. Unfortunately, Dr. Fauci got major epidemiology and public health questions wrong. Reality and scientific studies have now caught up with him.
Here are six key issues:
1. Natural immunity
By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States. Mounting evidence indicates that natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. In a study from Israel, the vaccinated were 27 times more likely to get symptomatic COVID than the unvaccinated who had recovered from a prior infection.
We have known about natural immunity from disease at least since the Athenian Plague in 430 BC. Pilots, truckers and longshoremen know about it, and nurses know it better than anyone. Under Fauci’s mandates, hospitals are firing heroic nurses who recovered from COVID they contracted while caring for patients. With their superior immunity, they can safely care for the oldest and frailest patients with even lower transmission risk than the vaccinated.
2. Protecting the elderly
While anyone can get infected, there is more than a thousand-fold difference in mortality risk between the old and the young. After more than 700,000 reported COVID deaths in America, we now know that lockdowns failed to protect high-risk older people. When confronted with the idea of focused protection of the vulnerable, Dr. Fauci admitted he had no idea how to accomplish it, arguing that it would be impossible. That may be understandable for a lab scientist, but public health scientists have presented many concrete suggestions that would have helped, had Fauci and other officials not ignored them.
What can we do now to minimize COVID mortality? Current vaccination efforts should focus on reaching people over 60 who are neither COVID-recovered nor vaccinated, including hard-to-reach, less-affluent people in rural areas and inner cities. Instead, Dr. Fauci has pushed vaccine mandates for children, students and working-age adults who are already immune—all low-risk populations—causing tremendous disruption to labor markets and hampering the operation of many hospitals.
3. School closures
Schools are major transmission points for influenza, but not for COVID. While children do get infected, their risk for COVID death is minuscule, lower than their already low risk of dying from the flu. Throughout the 2020 spring wave, Sweden kept daycare and schools open for all its 1.8 million children ages 1 to 15, with no masks, testing or social distancing. The result? Zero COVID deaths among children and a COVID risk to teachers lower than the average of other professions. In fall 2020, most European countries followed suit, with similar results. Considering the devastating effects of school closures on children, Dr. Fauci’s advocacy for school closures may be the single biggest mistake of his career.
4. Masks
The gold standard of medical research is randomized trials, and there have now been two on COVID masks for adults. For children, there is no solid scientific evidence that masks work. A Danish study found no statistically significant difference between masking and not masking when it came to coronavirus infection. In a study in Bangladesh, the 95 percent confidence interval showed that masks reduced transmission between 0 percent and 18 percent. Hence, masks are either of zero or limited benefit. There are many more critical pandemic measures that Dr. Fauci could have emphasized, such as better ventilation in schools and hiring nursing home staff with natural immunity.
5. Contact tracing
For some infectious diseases, such as Ebola and syphilis, contact tracing is critically important. For a commonly circulating viral infection such as COVID, it was a hopeless waste of valuable public health resources that did not stop the disease.
In private conversations, most of our scientific colleagues agree with us on these points. Whilea fewhave spoken up, why are not more doing so? Well, some tried but failed. Others kept silent when they saw colleagues slandered and smeared in the media or censoredbyBigTech.
Some are government employees who are barred from contradicting official policy. Many are afraid of losing positions or research grants, aware that Dr. Fauci sits on top of the largest pile of infectious disease research money in the world. Most scientists are not experts on infectious disease outbreaks. Were we, say, oncologists, physicists or botanists, we would probably also have trusted Dr. Fauci.
The evidence is in. Governors, journalists, scientists, university presidents, hospital administrators and business leaders can continue to follow Dr. Anthony Fauci or open their eyes. After 700,000-plus COVID deaths and the devastating effects of lockdowns, it is time to return to basic principles of public health.
A version of this article originally appeared in Newsweek
Martin Kulldorff, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is an epidemiologist and biostatistician. He is Professor of Medicine at Harvard University (on leave) and a Fellow at the Academy of Science and Freedom. His research focuses on infectious disease outbreaks and the monitoring of vaccine and drug safety, for which he has developed the free SaTScan, TreeScan, and RSequential software. Co-Author of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Jay Bhattacharya, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a physician, epidemiologist and health economist. He is Professor at Stanford Medical School, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, a Faculty Member at the Stanford Freeman Spogli Institute, and a Fellow at the Academy of Science and Freedom. His research focuses on the economics of health care around the world with a particular emphasis on the health and well-being of vulnerable populations. Co-Author of the Great Barrington Declaration.
An MSNBC contributor was taught a valuable lesson. Her two children said enough with the boosters, we refuse anymore jabs.
Katty Kay.
“But I had a strange conversation with my 22-year-old and my 16-year-old last night, and I said, ‘Okay, I booked you in for COVID updates, you’re both back for holidays, you’re going to get your boosters,’ and both of them said, ‘No, we don’t want to. We’ve had enough vaccines, and we don’t think we need them,’” Kay said. “I was sort of shocked and appalled.”
Washington Post Report Showing Exercise Reduces COVID-19 Risk was Criticized Online for “Confirming the Obvious”
How can that be? A part time water department employee tells us only the multiple jabs prevent COVID risks.
A Washington Post report showing exercise reduces COVID-19 risk was criticized online Wednesday for “confirming the obvious” and vindicating critics who opposed gym closures during the pandemic, Fox News reported.
Gretchen Reynolds, a health columnist for the Washington Post, mentioned in what she called an “eye-opening study” in an article titled “Regular exercise protects against fatal COVID, a new study shows” that confirmed any amount of activity significantly lowered the risk of acquiring a severe coronavirus infection.
“Men and women who worked out at least 30 minutes most days were about four times more likely to survive covid-19 than inactive people, according to an eye-opening study of exercise and coronavirus outcomes among almost 200,000 adults in Southern California,” according to the article.
“The study found that exercise, in almost any amount, reduced people’s risks for a severe coronavirus infection. Even people who worked out for as little as 11 minutes a week — yes, a week — experienced lower risks of hospitalization or death from covid than those who moved about less,” it added.
“The findings add to mounting evidence that any amount of exercise helps lower the ferocity of coronavirus infections, a message with particular relevance now, as holiday travel and gatherings ramp up and covid cases continue to rise.”
“It turns out exercise is even more powerful than we thought” at protecting people from severe covid, said Robert Sallis, a clinical professor at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine in Los Angeles and senior author of the new study.
Many people online blasted the far-left Washington Post for reporting a study of what most people already knew since the beginning of the pandemic.
While the rest of the world is busy mandating the experimental COVID-19 vaccines, El Salvador launched a new ad campaign to help prevent COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations.
El Salvador President Nayib Bukele launched a new ad campaign that promotes people to live a healthy lifestyle, early this year.
The campaign video, tweeted by President Bukele, tells Salvadorans that a healthy lifestyle also helps reduce any complications caused by COVID-19. It is the safest and easiest way to combat COVID-19.
The video gives recommendations that people need to follow to help reduce complications from COVID-19 and prevent deaths and hospitalizations.
The El Salvadoran government told people what the “experts” should have been saying from the beginning. American health officials, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Joe Biden, and state governors should spend time talking about these things and not about pushing experimental vaccines to kids and adults.
Here’s the translation:
“Maintaining a healthy lifestyle also helps reduce complications from COVID-19. The groups most at risk of mortality are older adults and people with obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and chronic diseases. Therefore, put these recommendations into practice. Eat a healthy balanced diet to get closer to your ideal weight. Do outdoor activities so you can breathe fresh air and get some sun. What your body needs to make vitamin D. Drink at least two liters of water a day to keep your kidneys healthy. Reduce stress by spending time with yourself such as doing yoga or reading a book. Try to sleep no less than 6 hours a day. Include citrus fruits in your diet, such as lemons, oranges, or tangerines. Avoid consuming alcoholic beverages, foods high in sugar or saturated fat. Today more than ever we must take care of each other. Stay healthy. Government of El Salvador.”
Ear infection concept. an inflammatory disease of the middle ear.
Visits: 47
The hits just keep coming from these shots – is this the new definition of “safe and effective?”
By Dr. Peter A. McCullough Dec 20, 2022
Loss of hearing in the elderly is common affecting both the patient and the people around them trying to communicate.
I have noticed many of my vaccinated elderly patients developing progressive hearing loss. Nieminen et al have conducted an extensive hearing assessment of patients in Finland after COVID-19 vaccination and compared them to the unvaccinated. The data suggested each successive shot increased risk for hearing loss. However, the most important results are in the supplemental tables which demonstrate the elderly and those with risk factors for hearing loss are pushed over the edge by COVID-19 vaccination.
Nieminen TA, Kivekäs I, Artama M, Nohynek H, Kujansivu J, Hovi P. Sudden Hearing Loss Following Vaccination Against COVID-19. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. Published online December 15, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2022.4154
Their risk for sudden and substantial loss of hearing is more than double those who wisely deferred on the vaccines.
The Spike protein produced by the vaccines is a neurotoxin damaging nerves throughout the body and likely having more of an impact in nervous tissue which is already degenerated such as the auditory nerve. It is also possible the Spike protein incites inflammation leading to fibrosis in the tissue holding the stapes or stirrup which is a bone in the middle ear, the annular ligament, or the oval window all involved in the conduction of sound vibrations to the inner ear.
If you have an elderly person in your circle who has been vaccinated, check on their hearing and do not fall behind on progressive hearing loss which if unchecked, can lead to social withdrawal and insidious depression.
By: The Vigilant Fox (a citizen journalist with 12 years of healthcare experience, focused on The Great Reset, world protests, and COVID-19.) December 21, 2022
Something strange is going on with the VAERS system. Reports that were present three months ago are now inexplicably missing. And fewer than 4% of adverse events recorded in V-Safe have made their way to VAERS. This is the CDC’s database; Rochelle Walensky is in charge of it. And their failure to properly manage VAERS is suppressing the already-alarming safety signal of the Covid-19 shots.
Fifty deaths pulled the swine flu vaxx off the market. Covid-19 vaxxes caused FIFTY deaths by January 2021!
Now, what is VAERS? VAERS stands for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. As mentioned earlier, VAERS is a database put in place in 1990 under the supervision of the CDC. Reports of suspected vaccine adverse events take about half an hour to fill out, and 86% of the time, this is done by a doctor, nurse, paramedic, coroner, or healthcare professional in which he or she believes the adverse event is related to a vaccine reaction. And because of its lengthy report process as well as the lack of awareness of the existence of VAERS, there is a general consensus of a severe underreporting factor for this database.
To get a better idea of what’s going on with the CDC’s handling of the VAERS system, Dr. Naomi Wolf spoke with Dr. Henry Ealy, an expert on the database.
Dr. Henry Ealy is the Founder & Executive Community Director for the Energetic Health Institute. He holds a Doctorate in naturopathic medicine and has been at the tip of the spear on the Grand Jury front — taking action to bring forth a Grand Jury investigation of the CDC for allegations of criminal data fraud and willful misconduct.
“You mentioned that V-Safe should be added to VAERS, but only 4% of V-Safe [adverse events have been] added. Can you explain what that means to people and why it matters?” asked Dr. Wolf.
Dr. Ealy explained, “VAERS is designed specifically for medical professionals and people alike to report, ‘Hey, I got hurt.’ And when enough people have gotten hurt for officials to look at it and say, ‘Hey, this product isn’t safe; it’s got to come off the market.’ V-Safe was created (by the CDC) to also do something similar to that — and to make that process a little bit easier. You don’t need as much information to record a report in V-Safe.”
By streamlining the process, the CDC got inundated with adverse event reports from the Covid-19 shot. Out of the 10,108,273 individual users, 800,000 had an adverse event — or about 1 in 13. And of those 800,000 V-Safe reports, only 30,492 have been logged into VAERS.
Dr. Ealy continues, “In V-safe, there have been over 800,000 reports of injury. And the deal was that in V-Safe, every single report of injury was supposed to also then subsequently have a VAERS report associated with it. So that means all 800,000 should be in VAERS. But unfortunately, or by design — however you want to look at it — only just over 30,000 of those 800,000 have been recorded in VAERS. So what that means is that fewer than 4% of the records in V-Safe have actually been reported in VAERS as they were supposed to be done.”
“What a sneaky way to basically sweep almost 800,000 adverse events under the rug,” remarked Dr. Wolf.
To add insult to injury, not only are the bulk of V-Safe reports not making their way to VAERS, but Dr. Ealy suspects that VAERS reports are being removed.
What were 45,388 reports three months ago has now inexplicably dropped down to 12,544.
Specifically, he notes that between September 2022 and December 2022, the CDC has removed at least 32,844 records of injury related to the following conditions: myocarditis, pericarditis, and heart inflammation. What were 45,388 reports three months ago has now inexplicably dropped down to 12,544.
Note the different totals between first chart and this one
Dr. Ealy stresses he’s “triple-checked this,” and he stands by the allegation that they are removing or obfuscating records.
Dr. Jessica Rose has also reported similar issues with VAERS. She wrote on November 19, “The foreign data set was gutted this week in VAERS, and the cancer signal was halved. The myocarditis dose three response signal was lost, and 994 spontaneous abortions/stillbirths were dropped.”
So, from two credible sources, it is appears that the CDC is removing records.
“It’s not an accident they would do this,” attested Dr. Ealy. “With Dr. Ladapo and Governor DeSantis coming out with that study about myocarditis and pericarditis, they’re trying to do everything they can to delete records to thwart what Governor DeSantis and (Florida) Surgeon General Dr. Ladipo are doing.”
“I’m stunned,” expressed Dr. Wolf. “This is as big as the Pentagon Papers, easily, if indeed the CDC deleted those records. I’ve seen the screenshots; it looks pretty bad. And so, you’re saying that Dr. Ladapo and Governor DeSantis calling for a Grand Jury investigation could be the reason that they’re deleting these, basically, evidence of their crimes? Because Ladapo and DeSantis will be investigating that data? Is that what you’re saying?”
“Right,” confirmed Dr. Ealy. “When you read through the Grand Jury petition that Governor DeSantis signed and submitted to the Florida Supreme Court, they are putting a lot of what their argument based upon their findings with myocarditis. So myocarditis and pericarditis — and that’s not without good reason.”
Dr. Ealy continues, “So the issue is — if you’re the CDC now — and you know you’ve been complicit in data fraud from day one, what do you start doing? Well, you’ve been deleting records for the last couple of years. Why not delete the records specific for myocarditis and pericarditis to try to thwart their attempts and try to discredit their analysis of what they’re doing? That’s what it looks like to me right now.”
“That’s many felonies!” exclaimed Dr. Wolf. “That’s not just a felony in terms of data handling — that’s a felony in terms of the criminal process, right? Isn’t that covering up evidence of a crime?
“Well, yeah. It would definitely [be],” replied Dr. Ealy.
The problem with VAERS as a federal system is yes, maybe if there is an erroneous record here or there, you should have the ability to delete it. But when you started seeing the CDC deleting hundreds of thousands of records and removing, in this case, over 32,000 records, or at least removing the search term. That’s my suspicion here — that they didn’t delete the record. What they deleted was that word — ‘myocarditis’ or ‘pericarditis or ‘heart inflammation’ in the actual report. And so, that’s modification of official records. And when you do that, that’s now criminal fraud — again. And, of course, it throws off our ability to really understand what’s going on with this because we rely on systems like this to give us information for making decisions.”
Dr. Wolf argues the CDC’s actions appear to be a “cover-up of evidence of mass murder.”
And she pleas Governor DeSantis and Surgeon General Ladapo to get in touch with Dr. Ealy’s team “because what you all have uncovered is absolutely stunning.” “And this latest, which you’ve presented, should be on the cover of every newspaper and every magazine and every news site in the world. This is huge if, indeed, they’re concealing myocarditis outcomes.”
A major new autopsy report has found that three people who died unexpectedly at home with no pre-existing disease shortly after COVID vaccination were likely killed by the vaccine.
A further two deaths were found to be possibly due to the vaccine.
The report, published in Clinical Research in Cardiology, the official journal of the German Cardiac Society, detailed autopsies carried out at Heidelberg University Hospital in 2021. Led by Thomas Longerich and Peter Schirmacher, it found that in five deaths that occurred within a week of the first or second dose of vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna, inflammation of the heart tissue due to an autoimmune response triggered by the vaccine had likely or possibly caused the death.
Case characteristic of five deaths likely or possibly caused by the COVID vaccines.Lymphocyte immune cells (white blood cells) are shown in blue and brown among the heart tissue, causing localised inflammation that proved fatal.
In total the report looked at 35 autopsies carried out at the University of Heidelberg in people who died within 20 days of COVID vaccination, of which 10 were deemed on examination to be due to a pre-existing illness and not the vaccine. For the remaining 20, the report did not rule out the vaccine as a cause of death, which Dr. Schirmacher has confirmed to me is intentional as the autopsy results were inconclusive. Almost all of the remaining cases were of a cardiovascular cause, as indicated in the table below from the supplementary materials, where 21 of the 30 deaths are attributed to a cardiovascular cause. One of these is attributed to blood clots (VITT) from AstraZeneca vaccination (the report was looking specifically at post-vaccine myocarditis deaths), leaving 20 from other cardiovascular causes.
For the five deaths in the main report attributed as likely or possibly due to the vaccines, the authors state:
“All cases lacked significant coronary heart disease, acute or chronic manifestations of ischaemic heart disease, manifestations of cardiomyopathy or other signs of a pre-existing, clinically relevant heart disease.”
This indicates that the authors limited themselves to deaths where there was no “pre-existing, clinically relevant heart disease,” making the report very conservative in which deaths it was willing to pin on the vaccines.
Dr. Schirmacher told me:
“We included only cases, in which the constellation was unequivocally clear and no other cause of death was demonstrable despite all efforts. We cannot rule out vaccine effects in the other cases, but here we had an alternative potential cause of death (e.g., myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism). If there is severe ischemic cardiomyopathy it is almost impossible to rule out myocarditis effects or definitively rule in inflammatory alterations as due to vaccination. These cases were not included.
“We did not aim to include or find every case but the characteristics of definitive, unequivocal cases beyond any doubt. Only by this way you can establish the typical characteristics; otherwise less strict criteria may lead to ‘contamination’ of the collective; it is absolutely plausible that by these criteria we may have missed further cases but the intention of our study was never quantitative or extrapolation and there are numerous positive and negative bias. But we wanted to establish the fact not the size.”
It is of course very possible that the vaccines also cause death where there is an underlying cardiovascular condition, and indeed, that it is more likely to do so. Thus these five deaths are the minimum from these autopsy cases in which the vaccines are involved—those in which there is no other plausible explanation.
It is worth noting here that initially in 2021, when the autopsies were first carried out, Dr. Schirmacher stated that his team had concluded 30–40 percent of the deaths were due to the vaccines. These earlier estimates may give us a better indication of how many of the deaths the authors really think are attributable to the vaccines, when they are unconstrained by highly conservative assumptions (and looking at causes besides myocarditis). Note that these percentages are based on a selection of deaths that occurred shortly after vaccination, not a random sample of all deaths, so the authors rightly warn that no estimation of individual risk can be made from them.
Did the autopsies find spike protein from the vaccines present in the heart tissue? The samples from the five vaccine-attributed deaths were tested for infectious agents including SARS-CoV-2 (in one instance revealing “low viral copy numbers” of a herpes virus, which the authors deemed insufficient to explain the inflammation). However, no tests were done specifically for the virus spike protein or nucleocapsid protein, such as have been used successfully in otherautopsies to aid attribution to the vaccine, so unfortunately this evidence was unavailable for these autopsies.
The autopsies in the report also only cover doses 1 and 2, not any booster doses, and only deaths within 20 days of vaccination, so the report doesn’t address directly the question of what’s been causing the elevated heart deaths since the booster rollouts from autumn 2021 or whether the vaccines can trigger cardiovascular death weeks or months later. (Otherautopsieshave confirmed that the spike protein can persist in the body for weeks or months after vaccination and trigger a fatal autoimmune attack on the heart.)
What the report does do, however, is establish that people who die suddenly in the days immediately following vaccination may well have died from a vaccine-related autoimmune attack on the heart. It also confirms how deadly even mild vaccine-induced myocarditis can be—and thus why studies like the one from Thailand, found cardiovascular adverse effects in around a third of teenagers (29.2 percent) following Pfizer vaccination and subclinical heart inflammation in one in 43 (2.3 percent), and the study from Switzerland finding at least 2.8 percent with subclinical myocarditis and elevated troponin levels (indicating heart injury) across all vaccinated people, are so worrying.
The authors of the new study diplomatically write that the “reported incidence” of myocarditis after vaccination is “low” and the risks of hospitalization and death associated with COVID-19 are “stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination”—notably declining to commit themselves to the official propositions that they dutifully repeat.
The fact that those who die suddenly after vaccination may have died from the hidden effects of the COVID vaccine on their heart is thus now firmly established in the medical literature. The big remaining question is how often it occurs.
Stop Press: Dr. John Campbell has produced a helpful overview of the report’s findings in his latest video.
The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis (Subcommittee) was formed on April 23, 2020, with Chairman James Clyburn (D-SC) promising the Subcommittee would be “forward looking” and would “look at the totality of the current response.” The Subcommittee failed on both accounts. Instead, Congressional Democrats used the Subcommittee as a hatchet against political adversaries and the former Trump Administration. The most prominent example of this is the fact that the Subcommittee held five hearings with Trump Administration officials in 2020, compared to two with Biden Administration officials in 2021 and only two in 2022. Further, the Subcommittee sent 31 public letters to Trump Administration officials in 2020, compared to 10 letters to Biden Administration officials in 2021 and only three in 2022. Subcommittee Democrats failed to hold the Biden Administration accountable. Specifically, Subcommittee Democrats refused to investigate: (1) the origins of COVID19, (2) President Biden’s politically motivated decision making, (3) the Biden Administration’s decision not to purchase more rapid, at-home COVID-19 tests leading up to the holidays in 2021, and (4) the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) actions sideling scientific experts regarding vaccine booster shots. While Democrats sat idly by, Subcommittee Republicans uncovered: (1) the United States likely funded gain-of-function (GOF) research on novel coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), (2) the scientific establishment, including Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, worked to suppress the lab leak hypothesis, (3) the Biden Administration provided uncommon access to teachers unions to draft and edit official CDC guidelines so they could make it easier to keep schools closed, causing devastating learning loss for America’s young people, and (4) the governors of certain Democrat-led states, particularly New York, violated CDC and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidance to force
Page 2 of 10 potentially COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes, causing thousands of unnecessary deaths. This internal memorandum details efforts from Subcommittee Republicans to uncover the truth and hold bad actors accountable. It also addresses the failures stemming from Subcommittee Democrats inaction. Simply, Republicans acted while Democrats failed. SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE REPUBLICANS’ FINDINGS Finding 1: The United States likely funded gain-of-function research on novel coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. On June 1, 2014, EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. (EcoHealth) received a $3.7 million dollar grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), entitled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”1 Through this grant, EcoHealth sent more than $600,000 to the WIV in Wuhan, China. Also pursuant to this grant, EcoHealth was required to report to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and “immediately stop all experiments” if it created a virus that showed evidence of viral growth 1,000 percent that of the original virus.2 Even if EcoHealth did not immediately report an experiment that met these parameters as required by the grant, EcoHealth would have to submit its annual progress report by September 30, 2019. On October 20, 2021, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform received a letter from Dr. Lawrence Tabak, Principal Deputy Director of the NIH. According to Dr. Tabak, EcoHealth “failed” to properly and promptly report an experiment that violated the terms of the grant.3 In one experiment, EcoHealth created a virus which showed evidence of viral growth over the stated threshold, but subsequently failed to report it. This experiment qualified as GOF research since the virus gained enhanced transmissibility. This is further complicated by the NIH’s revolving and changing definition to GOF to fit their preferred narrative. Prior to October 20, 2021, GOF was defined as, “research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent.”4 EcoHealth’s experiment would clearly fit this definition. However, after October 20, this definition was stripped from NIH’s website. The only viable explanation for this is to shield NIH from scrutiny and accountability since Drs. Fauci and Collins have long been proponents of GOF research 1 Project Grant, Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Research, EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. (June 1, 2014). 2 Letter from Hon. Francis Collins, Dir., Nat’l Insts. Of Health, to Hon. James Comer, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform (July 28, 2021) [hereinafter Collins Letter]. 3 Letter from Lawrence Tabak, Deputy Dir., U.S. Nat’l Insts. Of Health, to Hon. James Comer, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform (Oct. 20, 2021) [hereinafter Tabak Letter]. 4 Gain-of-Function Research Involving Potential Pandemic Pathogens, U.S. NAT’L INSTS. OF HEALTH (last updated July 12, 2021) (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20211019065407/https:/www.nih.gov/news-events/gainfunction-research-involving-potential-pandemic-pathogens.)
Page 3 of 10 stating, “important information and insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus in the laboratory.”5 Select Subcommittee Republicans will continue this investigation. Finding 2: The scientific establishment, including Drs. Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, worked to suppress the lab leak hypothesis. Despite Dr. Fauci claiming otherwise on multiple occasions, he was, in fact, aware of the monetary relationship between the NIAID, the NIH, EcoHealth, and the WIV by January 27, 2020.6 Dr. Fauci also knew that NIAID worked with EcoHealth to craft a grant policy to sidestep the gain-of-function moratorium at the time.7 This new policy, designed by EcoHealth and agreed to by NIAID, allowed EcoHealth to conduct dangerous experiments on novel bat coronaviruses—with very little oversight—that would have otherwise been blocked by the moratorium.8 In January 2020, Dr. Fauci was also aware that EcoHealth was not in compliance with the terms of its grant that funded the WIV.9 EcoHealth was required to submit an annual progress report to NIAID by September 30, 2019, and failed to timely submit the report. 10 On February 1, 2020, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, and at least eleven other scientists convened a conference call to discuss the origins of COVID-19.11 It was on this conference call that Drs. Fauci and Collins were first warned that COVID-19 may have leaked from the WIV and, further, may have been intentionally genetically manipulated: • Dr. Kristian Andersen said, “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered . . . Eddie [Holmes], Bob [Garry], Mike [Farzan], and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”12 • Dr. Robert Garry said, “I really can’t think of a plausible natural scenario . . . I just can’t figure out how this gets accomplished in nature . . . Of course, in the lab it would be easy . . . .”13 5 Anthony S. Fauci, Gary J. Nabel, & Francis S. Collins, A flu virus risk worth taking, WASH. POST (Dec. 30, 2011). 6 Email from Greg Folkers to Anthony Fauci, et. al. (Jan. 27, 2020) (On file with Comm. Staff); Zachary Basu, Fauci and Rand Paul clash over NIH funding for Wuhan Institute of Virology, AXIOS (May 11, 2021). 7 Sharon Lerner & Mara Hvistendahl, NIH Officials Worked with EcoHealth Alliance to Evade Restrictions on Coronavirus Experiments, INTERCEPT (Nov. 3, 2021). 8 Id. 9 Letter from Lawrence Tabak to James Comer (Oct. 20, 2021). 10 Id. 11 Email from Jeremy Farrar to Anthony Fauci, et. al. (Feb. 1, 2020) (On file with Comm. Staff). 12 E-mail from Dr. Kristian Andersen to Dr. Anthony Fauci & Dr. Jeremy Farrar (Jan. 31, 2020) (On file with Comm. staff). 13 Letter from Hon. James Comer, supra note 2.
Page 4 of 10 • Dr. Michael Farzan said he was “bothered by the furin site and ha[d] a hard time explain[ing] that as an event outside the lab . . . I am 70:30 or 60:40 [lab].”14 • Dr. Andrew Rambaut said, “[f]rom a (natural) evolutionary point of view the only thing here that strikes me as unusual is the furin cleavage site.”15 • Dr. Edward Holmes indicated that he was “60-40 lab . . . .”16 • Dr. Jeremy Farrar said, “I am 50-50 [lab].”17 Only three days later, on February 4, 2020, four participants of the conference call authored a paper entitled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” and sent a draft to Drs. Fauci and Collins.18 Prior to final publication in Nature Medicine, the paper was sent to Dr. Fauci for editing and approval.19 It is unclear what, if any, new evidence was presented or if the underlying science changed in those three days, but after speaking with Drs. Fauci and Collins, the authors abandoned their belief COVID-19 was the result of a laboratory leak. It is unclear if Drs. Fauci or Collins edited the paper prior to publication. On April 16, 2020, more than two months after the original conference call, Dr. Collins emailed Dr. Fauci expressing dismay that the Nature Medicine article—which they saw and were given opportunity to edit prior to publication—did not squash the lab leak hypothesis. 20 Dr. Collins asks if the NIH can do more to “put down” the lab leak hypothesis.21 The next day—after Dr. Collins explicitly asked for more public pressure—Dr. Fauci cited the Nature Medicine paper from the White House podium likely in an effort to further stifle the hypothesis COVID-19 leaked from the WIV.22 The Biden Administration continues to hide, obfuscate, and shield the truth. By continuing to refuse to cooperate in the Republican investigation into the origins of COVID-19, the Administration is choosing to hide information that will help inform the origins of the pandemic, prevent and respond to future pandemics, inform the United States’ current national security posture, and restore confidence in our public health experts. This continued obstruction is likely to cause irreparable harm to the credibility of these agencies. 14 Id; “Furin” refers to COVID-19’s Furin Cleavage Site. Generally, Furin is a protease enzyme that breaks down proteins into single amino acids, to then form new proteins. This is done by cleaving bonds within specific proteins. COVID-19’s unique Furin Cleavage Site enhances transmissibility and ability to infect other tissue types in the body. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Email from Jeremy Farrar to Anthony Fauci & Francis Collins (Feb. 4, 2020) (On file with Comm. Staff) 19 Email from Kristian Andersen to Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, & Jeremy Farrar (Mar. 6, 2020) (On file with Comm. staff). 20 Email from Kristian Andersen to Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, & Jeremy Farrar (Mar. 6, 2020) (On file with Comm. staff). 21 Email from Francis Collins to Anthony Fauci, et. al. (Apr. 16, 2020) (On file with Comm. Staff). 22 John Haltiwanger, Dr. Fauci throws cold water on conspiracy theory that coronavirus was created in a Chinese lab, BLOOMBERG (Apr. 18, 2020).
Page 5 of 10 Select Subcommittee Republicans will continue this investigation. Finding 3: The Biden Administration provided uncommon access to teachers unions to draft and edit official Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines so they could make it easier to keep schools closed, causing devastating learning loss for America’s young people. On May 11, 2021, after public reports of political interference by American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in the school re-opening policymaking process, Subcommittee Republicans wrote to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky to request documents and information regarding the formulation of the “Operational Strategy for K-12 Schools through Phased Prevention” (Operational Strategy). 23 On July 19, 2021, Director Walensky responded and asserted CDC’s consultation with AFT was routine and consistent with the agency’s customary process for issuing guidance.24 Documents and testimony show, however, that Director Walensky downplayed the degree to which CDC departed from past practice to allow AFT to influence the policymaking process. In fact, CDC allowed AFT to insert language into the Operational Strategy that made it more likely schools across the country would remain closed after February 2021. Contrary to the CDC’s long-standing practice of keeping draft guidance documents confidential Republicans learned through documents and testimony that senior CDC officials shared a draft copy of the Operational Strategy with the AFT, a political union with no scientific expertise but an extensive record of providing financial support to the Biden campaign and other elected Democrats. After reviewing the draft, AFT staff asked Director Walensky to install a “trigger” in the guidance that would cause schools to close automatically if COVID-19 positivity rates reached a certain threshold.25 The CDC obliged, and thousands of schools across the country remained closed throughout the 2020-2021 school year. On February 18, 2022, Subcommittee staff interviewed Dr. Henry Walke, a career CDC scientist and medical doctor. Dr. Walke testified this level of coordination between the CDC and an outside organization was “uncommon.”26 In fact, according to Dr. Walke, the CDC does not typically share draft guidance outside the agency for any reason, even with other federal partners.27 23 Letter from Hon. Steve Scalise, Ranking Member, Select Subcomm. on the Coronavirus Crisis, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, et. al., to Dr. Rochelle Walensky, Director, U.S. Cents. For Disease Control & Prevention (May 11, 2021). 24 Letter from Dr. Rochelle Walensky, Director, U.S. Cents. For Disease Control & Prevention, to Hon. James Comer, Ranking Member, Comm. on Oversight & Reform (July 19, 2021). 25 Email from Ms. Kelly Trautner, American Fed. Of Teachers, to Dr. Rochelle Walensky, Dir., U.S. Cents. for Disease Control & Prevention, et. al. (Feb. 11, 2021). 26 Transcribed Interview of Dr. Henry Walke, Director, Cent. for Preparedness & Response, U.S. Cents. For Disease Control & Prevention, by H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform Staff (Feb. 18, 2022) [hereinafter Walke TI]. 27 Id.
Page 6 of 10 The actions by the AFT and the Biden Administration led to more school closures. Virtual school and school closures will be one of the biggest failures during the pandemic and they were largely perpetuated by teachers unions and Democrats nationwide. According to University of Harvard professor Thomas Kane, “…the closures came at a stiff price—a large decline in children’s achievement overall and a historic widening in achievement gaps by race and economic status.”28 Further according to Brown University professor Emily Oster, “[t]he past two years have seen enormous test score declines for kids…these declines were caused, at least in significant part, by school closures.”29 Professor Oster continued, “…the lack of resumption of in-person learning was a significant contributing factor to test score declines.”30 Compared to the academic decline, the mental health toll on America’s youth is vast but more difficult to ascertain. Because lawyers for the Biden Administration prevented a key witness from explaining why the CDC allowed AFT to write key portions of its guidance for re-opening schools, there are still several unanswered questions.31 Select Subcommittee Republicans will continue this investigation. Finding 4: The governors of certain Democrat-led states, particularly New York, violated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidance to force potentially COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes, causing thousands of unnecessary deaths. On March 13, 2020, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued guidance “For Infection Control and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes.”32 This guidance is a blueprint for individual states to follow when determining how to best control outbreaks of COVID-19 in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. This guidance does not direct any nursing home to accept a COVID-19 positive patient if they are unable to do so safely. In fact, it says “nursing homes should admit any individual that they would normally admit to their facility, including individuals from hospitals where a case of COVID-19 was/is present” only if the nursing home can follow Centers for Disease Control (CDC) quarantining guidance.33 28 Thomas Kane, Kids Are Far, Far Behind in School, THE ATLANTIC (May 22, 2022). 29 Zachary Rogers, Sharpest learning loss occurred in school districts that stayed remote longer, study says, CBS (Sept. 15, 2022). 30 Id. 31 Id. 32 Memorandum from David R. Wright, Director, Quality, Safety & Oversight Group, U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to State Survey Agency Directors (Mar. 13, 2020) (on file with Comm. Staff). 33 Id; (emphasis added).
Page 7 of 10 CMS Administrator Seema Verma said, “[u]nder no circumstances should a hospital discharge a patient to a nursing home that is not prepared to take care of those patient’s needs.”34 The most infamous violation of this guidance came from former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. On March 25, 2020, the New York Department of Health posted, on their website, a now deleted directive entitled “Hospital Discharges and Admissions to Nursing Homes.”35 This directive said “[n]o resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the [nursing home] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19” and “[nursing homes] are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or re-admission.”36 For clarity, this advisory mandated nursing homes accept known COVID-19 positive patients andmandated that nursing homes not even test patients for COVID-19 prior to admission. On October 13, Subcommittee staff interviewed former White House COVID-19 Coordinate Dr. Deborah Birx. When asked about Governor Cuomo’s infamous March 25, 2020, nursing home order, Dr. Birx testified that the order violated CMS guidance and that admitting potentially positive COVID-19 nursing home residents back into the nursing home could have led to unnecessary deaths.37 Because the former Cuomo Administration and the current Administration of Governor Kathy Hochul have refused to share any information with the Subcommittee, several unanswered questions remain. Select Subcommittee Republicans will continue this investigation. SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE DEMOCRATS’ FAILURES Failure 1: Subcommittee Democrats failed to investigate the origins of COVID-19. Select Subcommittee Democrats affirmatively declined to investigate the origins of COVID-19; a never-before-seen virus that has now killed more than six million people worldwide. On three occasions, Subcommittee Republicans requested Subcommittee Democrats investigate the origins of COVID-19. On each occasion, they refused. Finally, on June 11, 2021, Chairman Clyburn responded to Republicans’ request. He stated, “[w]e are concerned that your request may be designed…to deflect accountability from the Trump Administration.”38 He 34 Charles Creitz, Medicare chief Verma blasts Cuomo for trying to deflect blame onto White House fo NY nursing home deaths, Fox News (May 28, 2020). 35 Memorandum from the New York State Department of Health to Nursing Home Administrators, et. al. (Mar. 25, 2020) (on file with Comm. Staff). 36 Id; (emphasis added). 37 Oct. 13 Birx TI at 119-121. 38 Letter from hon. James E. Clyburn, Chairman, Select Subcomm. On the Coronavirus Crisis, H. Comm. On Oversight & Reform, & Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney, Chairwoman, H. Comm. On Oversight & Reform, to Hon. Steve
Page 8 of 10 continued, “[y]our apparent effort to use the issue of the origin of the virus in order to shift accountability from President Trump…is an irresponsible gambit that we urge you to abandon.”39 Unfortunately for Subcommittee Democrats, investigating the origins of COVID-19 is not a political pursuit. In fact, on May 14, 2021, Dr. Jesse Bloom and 17 other respected scientists called for the origins to be investigated. They wrote, “[k]nowing how COVID-19 emerged is critical for informing global strategies to mitigate the risk of future outbreaks.”40 The authors continued, “[w]e must take hypothesis about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously…”41 Additionally, on September 17, 2021, another 16 scientists writing in The Lancet, said, “[o]verwhelming evidence for either zoonotic or research-related origin is lacking: the jury is still out.”42 On September 14, 2022, The Lancet COVID-19 Commission said, “[i]dentifiying these origins would provide greater clarity into not only the causes of the current pandemic but also vulnerabilities to future outbreaks and strategies to prevent them.”43 The Commission continued, “…hypothesis about both natural and laboratory spillovers are in play and need further investigation.”44 Despite these calls from numerous respected scientists for further investigation into the origins of COVID-19, Subcommittee Democrats chose to play politics and ignore them. Understanding the origins of COVID-19 is not only about accountability but also about preparing for and defending against future viral pandemics. Failure 2: Subcommittee Democrats failed to investigate President Biden’s politically motivated decision making. Select Subcommittee Democrats refused to investigate the Biden Administration’s routine decisions that followed the political science instead of the medical science. For instance, while campaigning, President Biden promised there would be no vaccine mandate but on September 9, 2021, through executive order, he imposed a vaccine mandate.45 The Biden J. Scalise, Ranking Member, Select Subcomm. On the Coronavirus Crisis, H. Comm. On Oversight & Reform, & Hon. James R. Comer, Ranking Member, H. Comm. On Oversight & Reform (June 11, 2021). 39 Id. 40 Jesse D. Bloom, et. al., Investigate the origins of COVID-19, SCIENCE (May 14, 2021). 41 Id. 42 Jacques van Helden, et. al., An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent debate about the origin of SARSCoV-2, THE LANCET (Sept. 17, 2022). 43 Jeffrey D. Sachs, et. al., The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future form the COVID-19 pandemic, THE LANCET (Sept. 14, 2022). 44 Id. 45 See Jacob Jarvis, Fact Check: Did Joe Biden Reject Idea of Mandatory Vaccines in December 2020?, NEWSWEEK (Sept. 10, 2021); Bloomberg Quicktake (@Quicktake), Twitter (July 23, 2021 02:16 p.m.), https://mobile.twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1418636102643167235; Zeke Miller, Sweeping new vaccine mandates for 100 million Americans, ASSOC. PRESS (Sept. 9, 2021).
Page 9 of 10 Administration went so far as to blame the pandemic on Republicans and the unvaccinated without any evidence.46 Further, on February 24, 2022, polling firm Impact Research argued in a now-public memoranda that the Democrats need to “declare the crisis phase of COVID over and push for feeling and acting more normal.”47 The next day, the CDC ended their masking restrictions in most places despite the fact that just two weeks prior CDC Director Walensky said it was not yet time.48 In addition, the Biden Administration has repeatedly renewed the COVID-19 public health emergency, and thus the extension of social welfare programs, despite President Biden declaring the pandemic over.49 Select Subcommittee Democrats’ have refused to investigate any of these politically based decisions by the Biden Administration. Failure 3: Subcommittee Democrats failed to investigate the Biden Administration’s decision not to purchase more rapid, at-home COVID-19 tests leading up to the holidays in 2021. Select Subcommittee Democrats ignored reports that the Biden Administration refused to purchase more rapid, at-home tests for Americans headed into the 2021 holiday season which corresponded with a dramatic surge in cases. In July 2020, during the Trump Administration, Chairman Clyburn said, “[w]ithout widely available, rapid testing, it is nearly impossible to control the spread of the virus…”50 The Chairman went on to say that the Trump Administration was “warned” about testing and “failed.”51 However, the Biden Administration was not only warned about a lack of available testing but flatly rejected an October 22, 2021 proposal to ramp up manufacturing and deliver tests to Americans prior to Christmas.52 This plan detailed the need for about 400 million tests.53 Ironically, exactly two months later, President Biden said, “I wish I had thought about ordering” 46 Remarks, The White House, Remarks by President Biden on Fighting the COVID-19 Pandemic (Sept. 9, 2021). 47 Julie Hamill, @hamill_law, Twitter (Feb. 25, 2022), https://twitter.com/hamill_law/status/1497205184790872065. 48 Julie Hamill, @hamill_law, Twitter (Feb. 25, 2022), https://twitter.com/hamill_law/status/1497205184790872065; Mitch Smith & Shawn Hubler, Masks Come Off in More States, but Not Everyone is Grinning, THE N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 9, 2022). 49 Declaration, Administration for Strategic Preparedness & Response, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., Renewal of Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists (Oct. 15, 2022); Adam Cancryn & Krista Mahr, Biden declared the pandemic ‘over.’ His Covid team says it’s more complicated, POLITICO (Sept. 19, 2022). 50 The Urgent Need for a National Plan to Contain the Coronavirus, Hearing Before the Select Subcomm. on the Coronavirus Crisis, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, 117th Cong. (July 31, 2020). 51 Id. 52 Katherine Eban, The Biden Administration Rejected an October Proposal for “Free Rapid Tests for the Holidays”, VANITY FAIR (Dec. 23, 2021). 53 Id.
Page 10 of 10 500 million at-home tests “two-months ago.”54 Yet no investigation was launched by the Select Subcommittee Democrats. Failure 4: Subcommittee Democrats failed to investigate the Food and Drug Administration’s and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s actions sidelining scientific experts regarding vaccine booster shots. Select Subcommittee Democrats disregarded the fact that President Biden’s FDA and CDC intentionally sidelined or ignored outside vaccine experts that did not support the Biden Administration’s vaccine only strategy. On August 18, 2021, without evidence and data, President Biden announced that booster doses of the mRNA vaccines would be available for Americans starting September 20, 2021.55 Top scientists and researchers were stunned by this decision—particularly because the CDC and the FDA had not yet conducted their independent review of the data.56 In fact, two vaccine manufacturers have not yet submitted the relevant data to the government agencies.57 This political manipulation and pressure to interfere with the science by President Biden’s White House reportedly contributed to the decision of two top career scientists, Marion Gruber and Phill Krause, who were key in the vaccine process, to leave the FDA.58 They felt that the FDA was being sidelined by the Biden Administration and according to press reports “what finally did it for them was the White House getting ahead of FDA on booster shots.”59 We now know that those same FDA scientists disagreed with the Biden Administration on the need for booster shots. In a paper published September 13, 2021, both Krause and Gruber argued that “[c]urrent evidence does not, therefore, appear to show a need for boosting in the general population, in which efficacy against severe disease remains high.”60 Despite this blatant disregard of scientific process, Select Subcommittee Democrats refused to investigate allowing the Biden Administration to engage in politicization of the vaccine approval process. 54 Ben Gittleson, President Biden to ABC’s David Muir on at-home COVID testing: ‘Nothing’s been good enough’, ABC NEWS (Dec. 23, 2021). 55 Bob Herman, FDA’s top vaccine leaders are leaving, Axios (Aug. 31, 2021); Erin Banco, Sarah Owerwohle & Adam Cancryn, Tensions mount between CDC and Biden health team over boosters, POLITICO (Sept. 13, 2021). 56 Caitlin Owens, The bureaucracy pushes back on Biden’s booster plan, AXIOS (Sept. 1, 2021). 57 Erin Banco, Sarah Owerwohle & Adam Cancryn, Tensions mount between CDC and Biden health team over boosters, POLITICO (Sept. 13, 2021). 58 Caitlin Owens, The bureaucracy pushes back on Biden’s booster plan, AXIOS (Sept. 1,2021). 59 Id. 60 Phillip R Krause, et.al, Considerations in boosting COVID-19 vaccine immune responses, LANCET (Sept. 13,
Researcher Toy Reid sits before a timeline chronicling the lead-up to the pandemic at the Hart Senate Office Building in Washington. Credit: Mark Peterson/Redux for Vanity Fair
Visits: 21
ProPublica and Vanity Fair are left wing, but this ProPublica article states something that most folks didn’t even know existed. the origins of COVID-19 released by the Republican oversight staff of a Senate committee. Here’s another shocker. Our examination affirms that the story, and the totality of reporting it marshals, is sound. So please read the complete article.I’ll give my assessment in the comments section.
On Oct. 28, ProPublica and Vanity Fair published a story about an interim report on the origins of COVID-19 released by the Republican oversight staff of a Senate committee. The interim report was the product of a far-reaching investigation into the question of how the pandemic began, and we wanted to give readers an inside view of the team’s work and share independent experts’ views of its findings.
The debate over COVID-19’s origins has been contentious from the start, and the report’s conclusion that the pandemic was “more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident” triggered criticism. Scientists, China observers and others questioned the Senate team’s findings and our reporting about them.
Over the past several weeks, reporters and editors at both publications have taken a hard look at those criticisms.
Our examination affirms that the story, and the totality of reporting it marshals, is sound.
We re-interviewed some of our original sources and reached out to other specialists to address questions that were raised about the work we did to put in context the evidence cited by the interim report. In particular, we took a close look at how Toy Reid, a State Department political officer on loan to the committee, translated a Chinese Communist Party branch dispatch that was cited in both the interim report and in our story as evidence that staff at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) may have been responding to a biosafety hazard or breach.
We commissioned three Chinese language experts with impeccable credentials who were not involved in the original story to review Reid’s translation. They all agreed that his version was a plausible way to represent the passage, though two also said they would have translated the words to refer to the dangers of day-to-day lab operations. The third produced a translation that was in line with Reid’s. All agreed the passage was ambiguous. We have updated the story to underscore the complexity of interpreting that dispatch.
We have added additional context to the story. We have also identified two factual errors inconsequential to the premise of the story. They have been corrected.
It remains clear that in 2019, the WIV was addressing serious safety issues while scientists there faced pressure to perform. Risky coronavirus research took place in laboratories that lacked the maximum biocontainment safeguards, according to the interim report.
A series of WIV patents and procurement notices “suggest that the WIV experienced persistent biosafety problems relevant to the containment of an aerosolized respiratory virus like SARS-CoV-2,” the interim report says. On Nov. 19, 2019, the same day a senior government safety official arrived at the WIV to discuss what a meeting summary described as a “complex and grave situation currently facing [bio]security work,” the WIV sought to procure a costly air incinerator. One expert told us such equipment could be used as a “quick fix” if the HEPA air filtration system had failed in some way. A few weeks after that procurement notice, the WIV filed a patent application for an improved device to contain hazardous gases inside a biological chamber, like ones used to transport infected animals.
The interim report described the WIV’s struggles to find disinfectants that were effective enough to kill dangerous pathogens without corroding metal. In November 2020, with the pandemic well under way, the WIV filed a patent application for a new disinfectant. The patent said existing disinfectants corrode metals in ways that could allow pathogens to escape, “resulting in loss of life and property and serious social problems.”
The director of the WIV’s highest-level biosecurity lab acknowledged in September 2019 that some Chinese facilities researching dangerous viruses had “insufficient operational funds for routine yet vital processes.” Dr. Gerald Parker, a biosecurity health expert and adviser to the interim report, said he found such revelations “a recipe for disaster.” He added: “You further couple that with an authoritarian regime where you could be penalized for reporting safety issues. You are in a doom loop of pressure to produce, and if something goes wrong you may not be incentivized to report.”
We continue to see our story as a measured exploration of the array of questions raised about the WIV’s laboratories. The possibility that a biosecurity breach at the WIV occurred, and sparked the pandemic, remains plausible.
We plan to keep reporting on this issue and expect new evidence to emerge. It is our view that both the natural-spillover and laboratory-accident hypotheses for the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic merit continued investigation. Given the human toll, which continues to mount, it is imperative that we continue this work.
For those who want to know more details about our exploration of issues raised, our reporting methodologies and conclusions, we are providing more information below on:
After the Vanity Fair-ProPublica story appeared online, questions began to emerge on social media about Reid’s translation of a key passage of a Chinese Communist Party branch dispatch dated Nov. 12, 2019, on the WIV website. According to Reid’s translation, it begins by pointing out that the lab works with dangerous pathogens and that once the test tubes are opened, “it is just as if having opened Pandora’s Box.” While the lab had “various preventive and protective measures,” it was nonetheless important to “avoid operational errors that give rise to dangers.”
The next phrase was the focus of the criticism. It appeared in bold letters in the interim report:
“Every time this has happened, the members of the Zhengdian Lab [BSL4] Party Branch have always run to the frontline, and they have taken real action to mobilize and motivate other research personnel.”
Our story shared Reid’s thought process. We wrote:
“Reid studied the words intently. Was this a reference to past accidents? An admission of an ongoing crisis? A general recognition of hazardous practices? Or all of the above?”
Reid recognized that there was an ambiguity in the phrase he translated as “Every time this has happened.” Did the word “this” refer to the daily dangers of doing experiments in a lab that handles deadly pathogens? Or did it point to the “operational errors that give rise to dangers”?
Before we published our story, Reid told us he found the passage to have a defensive tone. In the story, we quote Reid as concluding, “They are almost saying they know Beijing is about to come down and scream at them.”
Seven days later, on Nov. 19, a senior Chinese official arrived from Beijing to the WIV for a small, high-level safety training. A meeting summary said that the official had come bearing important oral remarks and written instructions from China’s senior leaders, including General Secretary Xi Jinping, related to “the complex and grave situation currently facing [bio]security work.”
To Reid, the mention of instructions from party leaders and reference to a “complex and grave situation” reinforced that the Nov. 12 dispatch was an attempt by the party branch to deflect criticism for something that had gone awry, as he explained.
We interviewed three experts on Chinese Communist Party communications before publication and shared with them the dispatches as they appeared in Chinese on the WIV website. We conducted the interviews on background to get their candid input. They expressed concerns regarding personal safety, given the sensitivity of the subject matter. All agreed with Reid’s interpretation that the safety training on Nov. 19, 2019, as described in the meeting summary, appeared to be urgent, nonroutine and related to some sort of biosafety emergency.
To assess the criticisms of Reid’s work that were raised after the story was published, we commissioned three Chinese translators, each with more than a decade of experience. One has translated for officials at the highest levels of the American and Chinese governments. We wanted their objective view of what the passage said, so we asked them to translate it and did not mention the interim report. After they had done that, we went back and asked them to review Reid’s translation from the report.
All three of their translations were different from one another’s and different from Reid’s. Yet, each agreed that Reid’s translation was one plausible way to translate the passage into English. Our translators looked at the Chinese characters that Reid had translated to read “Every time this has happened” and instead said they read them to mean “on such occasions” or “at every such an occasion.”
Before one of the translators was told what Reid had written, she said she thought the word “occasions” referred to when lab workers make mistakes that lead to hazards — an interpretation that mirrored Reid’s. The two others said they thought “occasions” referred to something more routine: opening test tubes for experiments. The language in Chinese, all three agreed, was ambiguous and could be read either way.
Some readers noted that the Nov. 12, 2019, passage actually appeared in August 2019 in a party publication. The existence of the earlier reference, they argued, proved that its repetition in November meant that it could not refer to a biosecurity emergency at that time.
We took a close look at the August 2019 post and asked our translators and the experts we consulted to do so as well. While the posts were very similar, the version uploaded on the WIV website in November 2019 was slightly different. It included additional language after the sentence that compared opening test tubes of viruses in the lab to opening Pandora’s box. The translator we commissioned who had the most experience rendered the additional language as follows: “These viruses are untraceable both coming and going, and although there are various protective measures, it is still necessary for lab workers to operate very carefully in order to avoid creating dangers through mishandling.” The translator was puzzled by the August post because without the language added in November, “it sounds as if they are leading the charge to open Pandora’s box,” she said. “If I were reading it, I’d be scratching my head.” That additional sentence, she said, “means that they go to the front lines to show everybody to be careful and not to cause errors that would be dangerous.”
One of the experts we consulted before and after publication, a former senior U.S. intelligence official, said the language added in November 2019 gave the post a defensive posture and was consistent with Reid’s analysis that party members were responding to some type of incident. The Chinese idiom that Reid translated as “come without a shadow and leave without a trace,” he said, “is a nice phrase to describe something that sneaked up on you and there was no way to defend against it. They’re basically saying to whoever this is being delivered to: ‘We didn’t see it coming. We did the best that we could to deal with the problem.’”
More on the Corrections and Added Context
There are two sentences in the story that have been corrected.
We reported that a Chinese military vaccinologist who had in the past collaborated with the WIV, Zhou Yusen, was the first to apply for a patent for a vaccine against COVID-19. The interim report stated that Zhou “was the first to patent a COVID-19 vaccine on February 24, 2020.” In fact, other researchers around the world sought patents before Zhou’s Feb. 24, 2020, filing.
However, it was the timing and nature of Zhou’s patent application and subsequent research papers that raised questions for interim report researchers.
In our review of early SARS-CoV-2 vaccine patent filings, the U.S. patent applications we found that predated Zhou’s were provisional applications, a number of which forecast experiments they planned to do in the future. Many of these applications were for vaccine candidates proposing to use a technology like mRNA. Such applications could be filed with the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence in hand and minimal experiment data.
By contrast, Zhou filed a full patent application for a different kind of vaccine that required more upfront work before its submission. Our story says, “In his patent application and in subsequently published papers, Zhou documented a robust research and development process that included both adapting the virus to wild-type mice and infecting genetically modified ones with humanized lungs.” We have updated the story to make clear why Zhou’s work stood out to the interim report researchers.
In our article, we quoted two independent experts and one adviser to the interim report about when they thought Zhou’s research was likely to have begun. After reviewing the patent and the papers, two said that they thought Zhou would have had to have started this work no later than November 2019. Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, said he believed Zhou’s timetable was feasible since his team had substantial expertise and ongoing work developing similar SARS-related coronavirus vaccines, but only if “everything went right.”
We have also corrected the sentence stating that Gabriel Gras was the last French expert at the WIV. We have learned that at least one other French scientist came to the WIV after Gras left.
Elsewhere, we’ve clarified language. Our story said that party officials at the WIV’s top biosafety lab “repeatedly lamented” the problem of “the three ‘nos’: no equipment and technology standards, no design and construction teams, and no experience operating or maintaining [a lab of this caliber].” We found two references to this concept in party branch dispatches on the WIV website in 2019. These Chinese Communist Party dispatches, we reported, “are often couched in a narrative of heroism — a focus on problems overcome and challenges met, against daunting odds.” We have updated the story to clarify that authors of those posts referred to the “three ‘nos’” as a recounting of problems from early in the lab’s construction that they said had been overcome, rather than a reference to ongoing struggles.
However, one of the experts on party communications we consulted saw the inclusion of the “three ‘nos’” in WIV dispatches as a telling sign that these serious problems from the beginning were “part of the DNA of this lab.”
On Whether the Lab Leak Is a Question Worthy of Exploration
Our story and the interim report pointed to a pair of oft-cited scientific analyses of COVID-19’s origins, one of which concludes that the pandemic was likely the result of multiple zoonotic events in which “two distinct viral lineages” of SARS-CoV-2 that had been circulating among animals at a Wuhan market infected people there.
Michael Worobey, an author on both papers, undoubtedly speaks for many when he says that natural spillover is “the only plausible scenario for the origin of the pandemic.” We repeatedly heard the perspective that the scientific case on the origins of COVID-19 is closed and that exploring the possibility that the coronavirus could have leaked from a Chinese laboratory is something no news organization or government official should take seriously.
We believe the opposite, that it remains an essential avenue for exploration to prevent future pandemics. And as interviews with other scientists before and after publication have made clear, the question is far from resolved. In their view, there is not enough evidence to establish how the virus first reached the now-infamous Wuhan market or to assert that zoonotic spillover is the sole possible explanation for the pandemic’s origin.
Bloom, the virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, is among those scientists. “I’ve never seen anything as controversial as this in my field,” he said. “The amount of toxicity is out of control. Each side feels uniquely wronged. To me, it remains an open question.”
The story noted that the interim report also left this question open: “The authors of the interim report do not claim to have definitively solved the mystery of COVID-19’s origin.” And the story also said the interim report is “no likelier” than studies of a zoonotic origin to “close the book on the origins debate, nor does it attempt to.”
Bloom believes the findings of the interim report and the story reinforce a need to continue to explore all possible causes of the pandemic. At the same time, he recognizes that the reactions to these investigations underscore the difficulty of having a dispassionate conversation about these questions. “Right now, this whole topic is so politically fraught, it’s hard for people to give objective assessments,” he said. “We may need an independent commission to get to the bottom of this.”
Fauci will be the 2023 commencement speaker at Yale’s School of medicine.
Fauci on Trial: retiring bureaucrat suddenly ‘can’t recall’ anything. Surprised?
We’ve reported this before, but someone did the legwork and read his deposition related to the govt/big tech collusion to censor those who opposed the vaccine mandates. They found a (not so) astonishing 174 times Tony the Fauch said “I don’t recall” — including when asked about emails that he sent, interviews that he gave, and other important information. Considering the 80-year-old con man could be looking forward to spending the rest of his life in jail if the censorship case and any sequelae ever go to trial, is anyone surprised?
COVID-19 vaccine maker AstraZeneca has revealed it made four billion dollars in sales from its coronavirus jab last year
Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Upholds Air Force Personnel’s Relief From COVID Vaccine Mandate
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court ruled unanimously to uphold a class action injunction protecting Air Force personnel who declined the COVID vaccine from punitive measures.
In the ruling, Judge Murphy wrote, “Under RFRA, the Air Force wrongly relied on its ‘broadly formulated’ reasons for the vaccine mandate to deny specific exemptions to the Plaintiffs, especially since it has granted secular exemptions to their colleagues. We thus may uphold the Plaintiffs’ injunction based on RFRA alone. The Air Force’s treatment of their exemption requests also reveals common questions for the class: Does the Air Force have a uniform policy of relying on its generalized interests in the vaccine mandate to deny religious exemptions regardless of a service member’s individual circumstances? And does it have a discriminatory policy of broadly denying religious exemptions but broadly granting secular ones? A district court can answer these questions in a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ fashion for the entire class. It can answer whether these alleged policies violate RFRA and the First Amendment in the same way. A ruling for the class also would permit uniform injunctive relief against the allegedly illegal policies. We affirm.”
Defense for Jabs Gone: Pandemic of the Vaccinated, Increased Likelihood of C19 Death
For the first time, a majority of Americans dying from the coronavirus received at least the primary series of the vaccine.
Fifty-eight percent of coronavirus deaths in August were people who were vaccinated or boosted, according to an analysis conducted for The Health 202 by Cynthia Cox, vice president at the Kaiser Family.
34% increase in Covid deaths in most vaxxed states vs least vaxxed.
We looked at the top ten most vaccinated states; they had an average uptake of 82%. And we looked at the bottom ten least vaccinated states, and [it] turns out there’s a 34% increase in deaths per 100,000 of COVID deaths in the top ten most vaccinated states.
Jeffrey Jaxen [of The Highwire]comments, “So there’s a data point that is actually really shocking, really should be alarming to a lot of people, really should be investigated.”
Agreed, Jeffrey. If the shots really were “safe and effective,” how is it possible that the top ten most vaccinated states are now seeing 34% MORE Covid-19 deaths than the top ten least vaccinated states? And why is it that programs like The Highwire and internet warriors that have to do CDC’s job for them? These things clearly aren’t working. There’s a negative efficacy signal, and nothing comes to chance when you compare ten states of data to another ten states. That’s essentially a mega meta-analysis.
201
