Emails Show Tony the Fauch Was Aware of Wuhan Lab Funding.
By Luca Cacciatore | Wednesday, 06 September 2023
Newly released emails show that since at least January 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci was aware of extensive research on coronaviruses conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
U.S. Right to Know obtained the emails via a Freedom of Information Act request. They show that the head of the U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic was corresponding with other officials about the lab’s findings.
The institute, indirectly funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through EcoHealth Alliance’s coronavirus research projects in China, has been at the center of theories on the virus’ origin.
Fauci was heading NIAID at the time of the now-released correspondence between him and his chief of staff, Greg Folkers, who informed Fauci that Wuhan discovered 52 novel coronaviruses related to SARS, the species to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19.
The research also included the sampling of over 12,000 animals, the discovery of the Swine Acute Diarrheal Syndrome Virus, and the detection of the closest cousin virus to SARS-CoV-2.
Folkers said the Wuhan lab used genetically modified mice, whose organs were made close to humans’, to test some of the viruses. The novel coronaviruses reportedly caused SARS-like diseases in the mice.
In addition, the aide highlighted research from the University of North Carolina that found some novel coronaviruses could bind to human lung, heart, and blood vessel cells.
A spokesperson for the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability’s select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic told the Washington Examiner that the emails were concerning.
“Dr. Fauci’s involvement in downplaying the lab-leak theory continues to raise more questions and concerns regarding his actions. Americans deserve to hear answers from Dr. Fauci himself,” the panel spokesperson said.
After all the COVID and Vaccine lies, will Americans comply to masking up? The majority will not. And if the MSM and their medical allies are truthful, they’ll report that those getting COVID, hospitalized, and dying will be the ones who got the eight jab.
I saw Tony the Fauch out spewing his bull again. But here is one of the few times he’s being truthful. Sort of. He states they really don’t work that well, but he says mask up anyway. A placebo effect?
“Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you,” Fauci wrote. “I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location. Your instincts are correct, money is best spent on medical countermeasures such as diagnostics and vaccines.”
Who gets the jab. Not I. Just putting this out there. There’s much that I disagree with here, but there are some good points. Overall the article was trying to be fair, but only doctors from the left were included. I’ll highlight some of the good points.
by Kristina Fiore, Director of Enterprise & Investigative Reporting, MedPage Today.
While the FDA and CDC have yet to weigh in on fall COVID boostersopens in a new tab or window, experts in infectious disease and public health are already discussing who should get them, and who may not need to.
High-risk groups get a resounding “yes” — but when it comes to younger, healthy adults, the answer is less clear.
There’s wide agreement that older adults will receive a hearty recommendation to receive the booster, which targets the XBB.1.5 strainopens in a new tab or window, said William Schaffner, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
The same goes for people younger than 65 who have chronic conditions, are immunocompromised, or who are pregnant, he said.
“Now for adults who are otherwise healthy and younger than 65, and young adults, adolescents, and children, that’s all going to be debated,” Schaffner noted, anticipating how discussions at CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will go when the group meets on September 12opens in a new tab or window. “Whether they receive a routine recommendation or one for shared clinical decision making … I think there will be some brisk discussion about that.”
Aaron Glatt, MD, of Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York, who is also a spokesperson for IDSA, said that people “who have been vaccinated, who are healthy, who are younger, are probably not the first people who should be getting in line to get another COVID booster, especially if they’ve had one.”
In addition, someone who’s recently had COVID probably doesn’t need a booster, he added.
Glatt was a strong advocate for shared decision making when it comes to COVID boosters. He gave the example of a 62-year-old who was boosted 6 months ago and is in good health. “I think for that group, there’s more leeway to say, let’s individualize the decision.”
“The good news is that you’ve had the full primary series of the vaccine and a bivalent booster, or you were vaccinated and infected, you have substantial protection against getting very sick and dying,” Benjamin told MedPage Today. “But the older you are, the greater your risk of getting very sick and dying.”
Paul Offit, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said the goal of the vaccine has always been to prevent serious illness, and on that basis, the highest-risk groups who should be candidates for vaccination include the elderly, especially people over 75; people with multiple chronic conditions; pregnant people; and the immune compromised.
“These four groups will get the most benefit,” Offit said. “We’re just not going to prevent mild disease for a short-incubation-period mucosal infection for any reasonable amount of time.”
Neither Schaffner, Glatt, nor Offit thought children should be strongly recommended to get a COVID booster. Schaffner noted that in young children, Omicron has been less likely to cause severe disease. In addition, he said, doctors are seeing less multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) due to COVID.
“Virtually every child has been exposed to COVID through infection or vaccination or both, so the population immunity, children included, is pretty high,” Schaffner said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the recommendations for these younger healthy populations are in the shared clinical decision-making category.”
“Why does a healthy 12-year-old with three doses of vaccine need another dose?” Offit said. “There would have to be protection against severe disease and I just don’t see that evidence.”
Glatt noted that “an immunocompromised, very sick child is a different story.” But if the child is healthy, “you’d really have to show me [good data] that there’s a reason to [boost].”
Even the U.K. is focusing its booster recommendations on older and more vulnerable people. Its Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) recommendedopens in a new tab or window offering vaccines to those at high risk of serious disease, including adults ages 65 and up, people with chronic conditions, and people who work in care homes for older adults.
Indeed, that recommendation makes sense from a population health perspective that asks who would benefit most from this intervention, said Bob Wachter, MD, of the University of California San Francisco.
But he believes even young people can get an incremental benefit from fall boosters. Wachter, whose wife has long COVID and who himself experienced a trip to the hospital because of COVID — not from respiratory distress, but from a related fallopens in a new tab or window — said he would recommend a booster to his 30-year-old children because the benefits outweigh the minimal risks.
Even though people in this age group have a low baseline risk of hospitalization from the disease, a booster would reduce that risk even further, he said. It might also help lower their risk of long COVID, he added.
“I start from the baseline that this is a very safe intervention, and there is potential benefit in almost everybody, including relatively young and healthy people,” Wachter said. “But to the question of who’s most likely to benefit, clearly those are the people at higher risk of bad outcomes.”
He added that this year’s fall booster will probably not be very popular, “because not a lot of people got it when the risk was higher and the public attention on COVID was greater.”
“It’s pretty clear that the national consciousness is over it,” he said. “If you’re a healthy 40-year-old, you’re not making a crazy choice not to get boosted.”
In total, the researchers looked at 78 studies involving more than a million people across the world. Results indicated that surgical masks reduced the risk of catching 'Covid or a flu-like illness' by just five percent - a figure so low it may not be statistically significant
Visits: 20
Worth Posting again. Masks really don’t work that well.
Just in case you missed it, we did a similar story several months back. With the latest hysteria that’s going on out there with the fanatics about the alleged resurgence of COVID, I thought it best to remind folks on masking up. This from the Cochrane Institute.
Data collection and analysis
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
Main results
We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies.
The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear.
Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks
We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).
Here we go again. (Photo illustration of Joe Biden holding ice cream) via Imagine Art
WarRoom’s Natalie Winters uncovered millions of dollars in funding, awarded primarily to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs and DoD
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that InfoWars published insider information that alleges the TSA and US Border Patrol will be moving back to 2020-era COVID-19 mandates and restrictions starting in mid-September through mid-October, to include mask mandates on all flights. This is in addition to the confirmed mask-mandate reinstatement at Morris Brown College in Atlanta, GA, and Lionsgate Studios in Santa Monica, CA. Also, a school district in South Texas just outside of San Antonio closed down temporarily due to an ‘uptick’ in COVID cases.
That same week, WarRoom’s Natalie Winters uncovered millions of dollars in funding, awarded primarily to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs and DoD, to ramp up testing and other COVID-19 related.
This was just a week after the NIH appointed Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, a staunch advocate for masks, lockdowns, and vaccine mandates, as the replacement for Dr. Fauci.
To further the suggestion that another lockdown scare is in the forecast, on Tuesday, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced funding of $1.4 billion to “support the development of a new generation of tools and technologies to protect against COVID-19 for years to come” according to a press release.
“Project NextGen is a key part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to keeping people safe from COVID-19 variants,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “These awards are a catalyst for the program – kickstarting efforts to more quickly develop vaccines and continue to ensure availability of effective treatments.”
Project NextGen, a $5 billion initiative led by ASPR’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) in partnership with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), coordinates across the federal government and the private sector to advance innovative vaccines and therapeutics into clinical trials, regulatory review, and potential commercial availability for the American people. The project builds on a better understanding of COVID-19 – with HHS developing, using, and constantly re-evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of current vaccines and therapeutics for over three years.
Recipients of the awards include:
$1 billion to four BARDA Clinical Trial partners to support vaccine Phase IIb clinical trial studies: ICON Government and Public Health Solutions, Inc of Hinckley, Ohio; Pharm-Olam, LLC, of Houston, Texas; Technical Resources Intl (TRI), Inc, of Bethesda, Maryland; and Rho Federal Systems, Inc., Durham, North Carolina.
$326 million to Regeneron to support the development of a next-generation monoclonal antibody for COVID-19 prevention.
$100 million to Global Health Investment Corp. (GHIC), the non-profit organization managing the BARDA Ventures investment portfolio to expand investments in new technologies that will accelerate responses in the future.
$10 million to Johnson & Johnson Innovation (JLABS) for a competition through Blue Knight, a BARDA-JLABS partnership.
The press release claims that their partnership with Regeneron will help develop a “novel monoclonal antibody that will protect people who do not respond to or cannot take existing vaccines,” despite their attempts to limit the distribution in Florida in 2021.
On Friday, Joe Biden announced that he plans to request more funding from Congress to develop a new COVID vaccine “that works.”
“I signed off this morning on a proposal we have to present to the Congress a request for additional funding for a new vaccine that is necessary, that works,” Biden told the reporters while vacationing in Lake Tahoe.
Biden warned that everyone will get it despite their previous vaccination status.
“It will likely be recommended that everybody get it no matter whether they’ve gotten it before or not,” he added.
Watch:
NEW – Biden Says New COVID Shots 'That Work' May Be on the Way for All Americans
"I signed off this morning on a proposal we have to present to the Congress – a request for additional funding for new vaccine that is necessary that works...Tentatively it is recommended, it would… pic.twitter.com/uYBdOQOK4o
A new COVID variant is gaining ground in the United States. You’ve probably been hearing about it in the news, and we’ve certainly been seeing it in our patients in recent weeks. Here’s what you need to know about it, how to protect yourself, and how to treat it if you do get sick.
First of all, DO NOT PANIC.
EG.5 — also known as the “Eris” variant — certainly seems to be highly contagious, but from what we’re seeing it is less virulent. In other words, it’s a lot like the Omicron variants we’ve seen recently — lots of cases, but not a lot of extreme illness or hospitalization.
If you’ve been exposed to the virus before, you likely have some natural ability to fight it off. We are finding that patients who have not been previously exposed are the ones hit hardest right now.
That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take steps to protect yourself. The good news is that the advice we’ve been sharing from the FLCCC all along still stands — do what you can to prevent getting ill (more on that below) and if you do get it, treat immediately. Early treatment is critical.
Common symptoms
The symptoms of this latest wave are like other respiratory illnesses, and include things like dry cough, sore throat, conjunctivitis, headache, skin rashes, diarrhea, and fever. However, we have been noticing a few unique symptoms, including:
Nasal congestion and sinus pain
Dental pain and soreness of gums and teeth
Puffy face
Swelling and/or pain related to the orbit of the eye
Malaise and muscle pain
Tiredness and fatigue
There is no need to wait for a confirmed PCR test to begin treatment if these symptoms arise. The tests were developed for older variants and reliability was mixed at best. Tests can be negative for days until a positive result appears, and that is valuable time lost. If you begin to experience any of the symptoms listed above, start treatment immediately. If you need a healthcare provider, check the FLCCC directory.
If you have difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (dyspnea), chest pain or chest pressure, or lost motor skills or the ability to speak, seek medical attention immediately.
In terms of a treatment strategy, we want to start with killing the virus in the upper respiratory system. Nasal rinses and nose or throat sprays are effective for this. We have advice on this in the I-CARE: Early COVID treatment protocol. This should be paired with systemic antivirals like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
Next, it is important to take a range of supplements that help boost the immune system. This includes things like: Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Quercetin with bromelain, N-acetyl cysteine, Probiotics, Omega-3 fatty acids, Melatonin (slow release is best), Zinc (taken with Quercetin), Selenium, and Andrographis.
If you are symptomatic, try a low-histamine diet that cuts out foods like sauerkraut and other fermented foods, alcohol, processed meat, aged cheese, certain types of fish and shellfish, and nightshade vegetables like tomato and eggplant.
If you’ve been following FLCCC for a while, much of this will sound familiar. Our early treatment protocol is still the right place to start when COVID comes to call.
Prevent illness in the first place
While we’re at it, let’s talk about getting your immune system into shape, and other evasive actions you can take to make sure you’re strong, healthy, and ready to fight off any virus coming your way this fall.
Follow our prevention protocol: Some easy things you can do include mouthwash and nasal spray, zinc supplements, Vitamins C and D, melatonin, quercetin or resveratrol, and elderberry.
Clean up your diet: It almost goes without saying, but what you eat and when you eat it has a profound effect on your overall health. Intermittent fasting and balancing your gut microbiome are key.
Get enough Vitamin D: There is a clear link between low vitamin D levels and the risk of infections and other illnesses. Fortunately, boosting your vitamin D with supplementation is fairly easy and inexpensive.
Reduce stress: Too much stress can create hormonal and other imbalances that suppress your immune system. Incorporate stress-reduction techniques into your daily routine for your overall well-being and to ensure you’re prepared to fight off infection.
Get good sleep: Sleep recharges your body so your systems can function properly. On average, adults need between seven and nine hours of sleep each night.
Get outside and get some fresh air: Spending about 30 minutes outdoors each day can help the skin synthesize vitamin D, and sunlight has many other great therapeutic powers too.
Many people have asked whether they should start up a prophylactic treatment of ivermectin again. On that front, our advice has not really changed: if you have significant comorbidities, lack natural immunity, or have a suppressed immune system you may want to try a twice-weekly dose of ivermectin at 0.2 mg/kg. Likewise, consider it if you are currently suffering from long COVID or post-vaccine syndrome and are not currently being treated with ivermectin. If you have an upcoming situation where you may have high possible exposure — such as travel, weddings, or conferences — taking daily ivermectin starting two days before departure and either daily or every other day during the period of high exposure is a reasonable approach.
Remember to immediately initiate daily ivermectin at treatment doses (0.4 mg/kg) at the first signs of any kind of viral syndrome. It bears repeating: Early treatment is essential!
Most of all, pay no mind to the ongoing drumbeat of fear-mongering that the mainstream media is providing. We know the routine. We’ve been here before.
The information in this article is a recommended approach to preventing and treating COVID-19 infections in adults. Patients should always consult with a trusted healthcare provider before starting any medical treatment.
New COVID Variant More Likely to Infect Vaccinated
Wednesday, 23 August 2023
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said on Wednesday the new BA.2.86 lineage of coronavirus may be more capable than older variants in causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received vaccines.
CDC said it was too soon to know whether this might cause more severe illness compared with previous variants.
But due to the high number of mutations detected in this lineage, there were concerns about its impact on immunity from vaccines and previous infections, the agency said.
Scientists are keeping an eye on the BA.2.86 lineage because it has 36 mutations that distinguish it from the currently-dominant XBB.1.5 variant.
CDC, however, said virus samples are not yet broadly available for more reliable laboratory testing of antibodies.
The agency had earlier this month said it was tracking the highly mutated BA.2.86 lineage, which has been detected in the United States, Denmark and Israel.
CDC said on Wednesday the current increase in hospitalizations in the United States is not likely driven by the BA.2.86 lineage.
Damning Life Insurance Data PROVES Far More Young People Are Dying — And It’s NOT from COVID
When data speaks, we must listen.
Thanks to Vigilant Fox
When data speaks, we must listen. And statistics from the Society of Actuaries reveal a harrowing health crisis in the American youth. While most of the attention has been directed towards the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, there’s an underreported situation emerging — a rise in the mortality rate of younger individuals. Disturbingly, these figures can’t solely be attributed to COVID-19 — far from it.
According to the data reported by the Society of Actuaries, which conducts research for the insurance industry, there is a concerning trend in deaths among the young. Much of this data comes from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has limitations with respect to data collection and transparency.
Actual-to-Expected (A/E) Death Ratios
To understand the gravity of the situation, retired nurse educator and respected medical figure Dr. John Campbell, walked through the Society of Actuaries data actual-to-expected (A/E) death ratios. The “actual” part of the ratio is the number of deaths that were actually recorded, and the “expected” part of the ratio refers to the number of deaths we would expect to see – using a 2015 to 2019 baseline.
Between April to December 2020, during the peak of the pandemic, the A/E ratio was 122%. This means there were 22% more deaths than expected. Excess mortality for all of 2020, including January to March, was recorded at 16.4%. 13.3% of the excess deaths were attributed to COVID, and 3.1% of the excess deaths were not. This makes sense because, at the time, there were no “miracle vaccines” to save us.
Fast forward to 2021, a year when vaccines were touted as our saving grace. The A/E ratio was at 117%, nearly mirroring 2020’s figures. Logic would suggest that with the rollout of vaccines, mortality rates, especially those related to COVID, should have declined. But they didn’t. And when it comes to non-COVID deaths, 15 to 34-year-olds saw a staggering 21.4% increasein excess deaths in 2021.
2022, primarily characterized by the less-severe Omicron variant, should have witnessed a sharp drop in excess mortality given the less virulent strain and increased vaccination rates. Instead, data up to March 2022 indicated an A/E ratio of 115% — and this figure excluded COVID deaths. Given this, one is compelled to infer that something went deeply wrong with pandemic measures. Most worrying, deaths among 35 to 44-year-olds, between October and December 2022, surged an alarming 34% above the expected 2015 to 2019 baseline.
Looking at graphical representations, particularly among males and females aged 15 to 34, the numbers stay consistently above the expected baselines. What’s more concerning is that these figures can’t solely be attributed to a lack of access to healthcare, as some pundits suggest. If this were the primary factor, the oldest age groups, more reliant on medical care, would see the highest excess deaths. Instead, it’s the younger and, often, healthier age ranges witnessing the most significant surges. The mainstream narrative is just not making sense.
Dowd’s book has thoroughly compiled headline after headline, of young people suddenly dying of an “unknown” cause. What you’re about to watch in the video below is young and healthy people, in the prime of their lives, suddenly and unexpectedly collapsing and dying. And this is just from the past eight months…
During the pandemic, we were told the measures were about “health” and “saving lives.” But in the midst of a major health crisis among young and working-aged people, health authorities are radio silent. Why is that? And why does no one seem to care what’s causing it? Because while COVID-19 is now well behind us, a more insidious health crisis is unfolding right before our eyes.
YouTube is taking immediate action to expand its “medical misinformation” censorship policies, according to a blog post by the popular video platform on Tuesday.
YouTube is streamlining its existing policy to three distinct categories in anticipation of a more long-term suppression of medical information authorities disagree with, according to the announcement. A significant portion of YouTube’s announcement focuses on how it will now censor certain cancer-related content.
“Starting today and ramping up in the coming weeks, we will begin removing content that promotes cancer treatments proven to be harmful or ineffective, or content that discourages viewers from seeking professional medical treatment,” the announcement states.
Today, @YouTube introduced an updated framework to simplify its medical misinformation policies and will begin to remove content that promotes certain cancer misinformation.
YouTube acknowledges the evolving nature of medical knowledge and information in its announcement.
However, “our goal is to ensure that when it comes to areas of well-studied scientific consensus, YouTube is not a platform for distributing information that could harm people,” its announcement states.
The three categories of “medical misinformation” will be Prevention, Treatment and Denial, according to the announcement. They state that YouTube will remove content that “contradicts health authority guidance.”
Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is suing YouTube and its parent company, Google, for allegedly violating his free speech, according to a complaint filed Aug. 2. YouTube has removed Kennedy’s videos because of its “vaccine misinformation” policies on multiple occasions, according to the complaint.
Since “YouTube does not allow people to say anything ‘that contradicts local health authorities’ (LHA) or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19,’” this means the government sets the medical censorship guidelines, Kennedy’s lawsuit alleges.
Just putting this out there. Fauci successor at NIAID peddled dangerous Remdesivir drug as ‘silver bullet’ against Covid-19 Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo tried to use unsafe antiviral IV drug on every covid hospitalized patient at UAB.
Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, the newly minted successor to Dr Anthony Fauci at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), was recently one of America’s chief hype women for an antiviral drug that is now unanimously considered an unsafe and catastrophically failed treatment for Covid-19.
Prior to moving to her Government Health post, Marrazzo was the longtime director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).
In partnership with Big Pharma drugmaker Gilead, UAB played a major role in the research and development of Remdesivir. The drug was developed over a decade ago with the hopes to treat Hepatitis C and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), but was suddenly repurposed to “treat” Covid-19 when coronavirus hysteria reached the United States.
Given the UAB-Gilead partnership, one would think that Dr. Marrazzo would refrain from commenting on issues through which she maintained a clear conflict of interest. Or at the very least, she had the duty to disclose her conflict of interest when speaking to the media about the UAB-developed “wonder drug.” She did no such thing.
Even worse, Dr. Marrazzo bashed harmless and low cost alternatives like hydroxychloroquine, while hyping the super expensive Gilead-UAB competitor drug.
“The hope was maybe, if you treat early in the disease, you don’t need a silver bullet” such as remdesivir, she told The Washington Post in a July 2020 piece. “Hospitals are on the razor’s edge,” she added, contributing to the fear and paranoia that was enveloping the nation at the time.
In interview after interview, Dr. Marrazzo had nothing but good things to say about remdesivir, despite the incredible lack of data available to support her outandish claims about the drug.
On social media, Marrazzo lavished endless praise upon Remdesivir, declaring it the best agent against coronavirus disease, and boasting that her hospital tries to use it on every covid-hospitalized patient.
“We don’t have enough remdesivir to treat everybody who’s in the hospital,” she said in a late 2020 news conference about the state of her hospital system. “It’s a really challenging situation.”
Her predecessor at the NIAID, Mr Fauci, infamously paraded Remdesivir as the “standard of care” for Covid-19 treatment, adding that it can “block the virus.”
Unsupported pseudoscientific claims about very expensive drugs (a full course of remdesivir costs the patient thousands of dollars) is nothing new for NIAID officials, who, under Fauci’s leadership, have created an agency that acts as a government marketing department for pharmaceutical companies.
Undoubtedly, Marrazzo’s Remdesivir maximalism had disastrous implications for patients hospitalized at UAB. The so-called silver bullet later took on a morbid nickname, “run, death is near,” because of the severe side effect portfolio associated with the IV drug.
The headlines speak for themselves:
Remdesivir not only failed, but actively harmed hospitalized patients, who were being injected with the antiviral agent following the recommendations of Dr. Marrazzo.
The most exhaustive studies on the Gilead-UAB drug show that there are zero clinical benefits to injecting patients with remdesivir. Many studies show that Remdesivir can severely injure vital organs such as the heart and kidneys.
Dr. Marrazzo has never publicly expressed remorse for her longtime promotion of the drug she once described as a “silver bullet” against Covid-19. She last promoted the unsafe drug in December, 2021, long after most hospital systems stopped treating patients with the Gilead-UAB disaster drug.
Last week during an Australian Senate committee hearing, Pfizer and Moderna executives were grilled under oath about covid-19 vaccine policies and vaccine safety.
Tensions were high during the public hearing, which was live-streamed via the parliamentary website.
Senators fired questions at Pfizer and Moderna executives who responded by dodging questions and refusing to take accountability for their failures.
To complicate matters, the drug company executives did not attend the hearing in-person, only via video link allowing them to plead ignorance about the studies that were presented during the inquiry.
At the commencement, the Chair warned the witnesses against giving “false or misleading evidence” and after opening statements by Pfizer and Moderna, the floor was opened to questions.
Stopping transmission
Senator Matt Canavan began question time and was laser-focused on the issue of viral transmission.
“Did Pfizer test whether your covid-19 vaccine could stop or reduce the transmission of the virus before its approval and rollout in late 2020,” asked Canavan pointedly.
Pfizer Australia’s medical director Krishan Thiru was evasive.
Left to right: Brian Hewitt, Director of Regulatory Affairs, Pfizer Australia; Krishan Thiru, Medical Director, Pfizer Australia
“To bring this vaccine to patients we were required to show that the vaccine was safe and effective…The primary purpose of vaccination was, and remains, to protect the person who received the vaccine,” said Thiru.
Canavan reminded him that Pfizer’s own CEO Anthony Bourla told a reporter on NBC news on Dec 3, 2020, that it was “not certain” if vaccinated people could catch and spread the virus, but Thiru kept repeating the mantra, “the vaccine is safe and effective.”
Canavan persisted, citing Pfizer’s official tweet on Jan 14, 2023, stating its highest priority was its “ability to vaccinate at speed to gain herd immunity and stop transmission,” and then on June 8, 2021, Bourla tweeted, “the vaccine was a critical tool to help stop transmission.”
“What evidence did Pfizer have to make that public statement to imply that vaccination could stop transmission?” asked Canavan.
Thiru pleaded ignorance saying he was not familiar with the context of the tweets and took the question on notice (to respond later in writing).
Canavan explained that federal and state governments had imposed vaccine mandates based on the evidence and advice from the manufacturers that claimed the vaccines could “stop the spread.”
Canavan also pointed to the Doherty Modelling report submitted to national cabinet in Nov 2021 that underpinned the government’s decision to impose mandates in late 2021, but again, Pfizer could not confirm whether it was consulted about the modelling.
Hewitt said, “I can’t answer that question” and took it on notice.
Moderna Executive Director of Medical Affairs for Respiratory Vaccines Rachel Dawson, said that in the phase III pivotal trials of 2020, its mRNA vaccine showed that it could reduce symptomatic infection, and that it could “make an important contribution to reducing viral transmission.”
Dawson cited real world data demonstrating that the spread of the virus was reduced in households among vaccinated individuals and that they had a “lower viral load.”
But to this day, the US regulator says the ability of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine to reduce transmission remains unproven. “While it is hoped this will be the case, the scientific community does not yet know if Spikevax will reduce such transmission,” states the FDA.
Canavan said Moderna’s evidence, “just doesn’t seem to stack up”.
“Politicians told us it will stop the spread. Clearly that hasn’t happened. Do you have a simple explanation for why very high rates of vaccination, higher than anyone expected (90%) in this country, has clearly not stopped the spread of coronavirus,” asked Canavan.
But Moderna avoided the question on transmission, presumably because it would undermine the entire argument that vaccine mandates “keep others safe,” and instead, referred to its scripted statement that “the goal of vaccination is to prevent severe infection in hospitals.”
Preventing infection
Senator Gerard Rennick then proceeded to challenge Pfizer on its claim that the vaccine was “100% effective at preventing covid-19 cases,” a statement that Bourla tweeted on April 2, 2021.
Rennick proceeded to explain why the statement was implausible.
“By September 2022, Australia had recorded 10 million cases of COVID despite having an adult population vaccinated to the tune of 95% so given those real world figures in Australia, do you still stand by that statement?” said Rennick.
But Thiru responded repeatedly, “we strongly believe, and we reiterate, that the vaccine is safe and effective for its intended use” saying that Pfizer’s vaccine remained highly effective prior to the emergence of variants.
When Rennick asked Pfizer for its definition of “highly effective” in terms of duration, Thiru responded saying, “When the wild-type virus was prevalent, efficacy of approximately or greater than 90% was maintained at six months for illness and severe disease.”
But regulatory filings clearly show Pfizer had strong evidence by April 2021 that its vaccine’s efficacy waned, and withheld the data from the public for months.
Claiming that vaccine efficacy was 90% after six months following vaccination is misleading because that figure is largely driven by the first couple months of the trial when there was still a placebo group. Had people stayed in the trial for the whole duration of the 6 months, the average overall, would have been lower.
Lack of studies
Senator Rennick proceeded to read out the TGA’s non-clinical report listing all the safety studies in animals that were not carried out prior to testing in humans.
Despite assurances that “no corners were cut,” there were no carcinogenic tests, genotoxicity tests, immunotoxicity tests, duration studies, interaction studies with other medicines, and the list went on.
Again, Thiru predictably answered, “I don’t have that report in front of me, so I’m afraid I can’t talk to that.”
When Rennick asked directly if any studies were omitted or circumvented entirely to achieve the accelerated time frame for vaccine development, Pfizer objected saying its process was “thorough and comprehensive”.
Safety problems
Senator Rennick asked if Pfizer had determined the mechanism for why its vaccine could cause myocarditis and pericarditis, but Thiru was defiant saying that Pfizer had “strong confidence in the safety profile” of its vaccine.
Rennick would not let up. “I want you to explain to me why it causes myocarditis,’ he asked several times.
Thiru conceded that Pfizer was aware of “very rare” reports of myocarditis and pericarditis temporally associated with vaccination, but could not explain the mechanism, instead opting to take the question on notice again.
Senator Alex Antic challenged Pfizer on the Fraiman re-analysis, which found one additional SAE for every 800 people vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine, but his attempts hit a brick wall.
Senator Pauline Hansen chimed in, noting the Fraiman re-analysis found a “36% increase in serious adverse events. The most common were coagulation disorders, including thrombosis, and acute cardiac injury. In every 10,000 people injected 18 will experience a life threatening or altering medical complication,” said Hansen.
Again, Thiru pleaded ignorance. “I do not have a copy of your paper. I have not examined it,” he said, “the benefit risk ratio for vaccination remains strongly positive in all indications, all age groups for which it has been approved.”
Senator Hansen became visually frustrated.
“You haven’t read up on all of this, have you?” she said angrily, “You’ve come to this inquiry and you haven’t done anything whatsoever to respond to our questions. I think it’s very poor of you to not be able to answer these questions.”
When it was Moderna’s turn to respond to the Fraiman re-analysis, they too, said they were not aware of it.
Senator Antic asked Moderna what its overall rate of SAEs was for its mRNA vaccine and how that compared to routine vaccination.
But Moderna’s director of Scientific Leadership Chris Clarke said, “I don’t have the actual rates of adverse events,” as he shuffled through the papers on his desk.
Antic was staggered by the response, “You’re before a Senate inquiry and you cannot tell me the rates of serious adverse events? I mean, it’s quite extraordinary.”
Moderna took the question on notice and said that in the clinical trials they “observed no safety concerns.”
Indemnity agreements
Senator Malcolm Roberts asked for details of the indemnity agreement between Pfizer and the Australian government.
Specifically, Roberts asked if there was any clause in the agreement that indemnified Pfizer in the situation where an employee is mandated by their employer to undergo vaccination and then experiences harm.
“Senator, any indemnity agreements between Pfizer and the Australian Government are confidential, and we’re not able to discuss that in this forum,” responded Thiru.
Roberts fired back, “What have you got to hide?”
He also asked if there was any clause in the agreement that negates Pfizer’s indemnity in the event Pfizer is found to have committed fraud in the trial, as alleged by whistle-blower Brook Jackson in 2021.
“My question is simple. What is the answer? Yes or no?” asked Roberts. But Pfizer insisted “the contents of Pfizer’s contract with the Australian Government remains confidential.”
Senator Malcolm Roberts summed up his thoughts.
“You have repeatedly refused to provide evidence and dodged questions from Senators Rennick and Antic. You have relied instead on appeals to authority, and other logical fallacies.”
Covid vaccine in pregnancy
Senator Hansen confronted Pfizer with questions about the safety of its vaccine in pregnant and breastfeeding women.
Thiru did concede that there is limited clinical trial evidence in pregnant women, but said that peak bodies such as the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) supported use of the vaccine.
“[RANZCOG] have said pregnant women in Australia are a priority group for covid-19 vaccination and should be routinely offered the Pfizer vaccine (Comirnaty) or Moderna (Spikevax) vaccines at any stage of pregnancy. They have said there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage or teratogenic risk with mRNA or viral vaccines.”
Forced vaccination
One of the most egregious moments of the hearing was when Pfizer’s Head of Regulatory Affairs Brian Hewitt, piped up and said no-one in Australia was ever “forced” to be vaccinated.
Senator Hansen took exception to the comment and asked if Hewitt would retract his statement.
Hewitt held his position saying, “No. I believe firmly that nobody was forced to have a vaccine.”
“A lot of Australians will disagree with you on that one,” retorted Senator Hansen.
Senator Matt O’Sullivan was incredulous. He said that in his state of Western Australia, there were mandates across the board, with “very, very few exceptions.”
“If you wanted to go to work, and earn a living and provide for your family, you had to be vaccinated. I am staggered that that was your response to questions in relation to whether or not people were forced to have vaccines,” said O’Sullivan.
Many of O’Sullivan’s constituents had to go without income because the state government was “forcing” them to be vaccinated against their will.
Hewitt looked down to read a pre-prepared answer, much to the dismay of listeners.
“Senator, mandates, and vaccine requirements are determined by governments. As a company we were not involved in any government vaccine mandates. I don’t believe the mandates actually forced individuals to get vaccinated.”
Pfizer did confirm that it enforced a vaccine mandate within its own company and that it had imported a special batch of covid-19 vaccines for its employees. Why the special batch? “So that no vaccine would be taken from government stocks,” said Hewitt.
Thiru also said there were some exemptions for medical or religious reasons and that “a small number of colleagues departed the company,” presumably because they did not comply with the mandate.
Moderna, on the other hand, distanced itself from commenting on vaccine mandates.
Clarke, Director, Scientific Leadership, Moderna.
Moderna’s Vice President of Medical Affairs Jane Leong said, “We do not have a view on decisions taken by public health agencies or governments in relation to vaccine mandates. This is purely a matter for policymakers.”
At the finish line, Pfizer and Moderna executives managed to expertly dodge questions, they couldn’t recall their own rate of SAEs, they wouldn’t admit that covid vaccines cannot stop transmission, and they refused to divulge details of their indemnity agreements with the government.
Responses to questions on notice are due Aug 17, 2023.
135
