Posted on 10/25/2023 9:36:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Remember when Sen. Rand Paul accused Dr. Anthony Fauci of funding China’s Wuhan virus lab?
Fauci replied, “Sen. Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about.”
The media loved it. Vanity Fair smirked, “Fauci Once Again Forced to Basically Call Rand Paul a Sniveling Moron.”
But now the magazine has changed its tune, admitting, “In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan … Paul might have been onto something.”
Then what about question two: Did COVID-19 occur because of a leak from that lab?
When Paul confronted Fauci, saying, “The evidence is pointing that it came from the lab!” Fauci replied, “I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating.”
Was Paul lying? What’s the truth?
The media told us COVID came from an animal, possibly a bat.
But in my new video, Paul points out there were “reports of 80,000 animals being tested. No animals with it.”
Now he’s released a book, “Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up,” that charges Fauci and others with funding dangerous research and then covering it up.
“Three people in the Wuhan lab got sick with a virus of unknown origin in November of 2019,” says Paul. The Wuhan lab is 1,000 kilometers away from where bats live.
Today the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Energy and others agree with Rand Paul. They believe COVID most likely came from a lab.
I ask Paul, “COVID came from evil Chinese scientists, in a lab, funded by America?”
“America funded it,” he replies, “maybe not done with evil intentions. It was done with the misguided notion that ‘gain of function’ research was safe.”
Gain of function research includes making viruses stronger.
The purpose is to anticipate what might happen in nature and come up with vaccines in advance. So I push back at Paul, “They’re trying to find ways to stop diseases!”
He replies, “Many scientists have now looked at this and said, ‘We’ve been doing this gain of function research for quite a while.’ The likelihood that you create something that creates a vaccine that’s going to help anybody is pretty slim to none.”
Paul points out that Fauci supported “gain of function” research.
“He said in 2012, even if a pandemic occurs … the knowledge is worth it.” Fauci did write: “The benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”
Paul answers: “Well, that’s a judgment call. There’s probably 16 million families around the world who might disagree with that.”
Fauci and the National Institutes of Health didn’t give money directly to the Chinese lab. They gave it to a nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance. The group works to protect people from infectious diseases.
“They were able to accumulate maybe over $100 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars, and a lot of it was funneled to Wuhan,” says Paul.
EcoHealth Alliance is run by zoologist Peter Daszak. Before the pandemic, Daszak bragged about combining coronaviruses in Wuhan.
Once COVID broke out, Daszak became less eager to talk about these experiments. He won’t talk to me.
“Peter Daszak has refused to reveal his communications with the Wuhan lab,” complains Paul. “I do think that ultimately there is a great deal of culpability on his part … They squelched all dissent and said, ‘You’re a conspiracy theorist if you’re saying this (came from a lab),’ but they didn’t reveal that they had a monetary self-incentive to cover this up,” says Paul.
“The media is weirdly un-curious about this,” I say to Paul.
“We have a disease that killed maybe 16 million people,” Paul responds. “And they’re not curious as to how we got it?”
Also, Our NIH still funds gain of function research, Paul says.
“This is a risk to civilization. We could wind up with a virus … that leaks out of a lab and kills half of the planet,” Paul warns.
Paul’s book reveals much more about Fauci and EcoHealth Alliance. I will cover more of that in this column in a few weeks.
Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and freedom. He is the author of “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.”
Don't assume that I am familiar with whatever conspiracy theories you love to read are. I'm not. I don't visit conspiracy websites. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Everything I post is based on my knowledge of how government works, the function of government, plus my background as a scientist.
If there is some form of government called a "technocracy," you will have to explain what it is, why it is bad, and provide examples of actual "technocratic" governments. You are going to also have to explain exactly how relying on science and technology to make government policy (which our government mostly does) is equivalent to, for example, the brutal North Korean dictatorship.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
I don't see anywhere where Madison defined general welfare. All I see here is a letter, a memorandum, and another letter that Madison wrote to some A. Stevenson in which he kept arguing about the scope of the government's enforcement of the general welfare. Nowhere does he mention public health (which is a function of general welfare). Nowhere does he say that the general welfare should not be a function of government.
Also, research Article 1 Section 8.
Funny, how you should be telling me that after I already linked to you the article itself along with a description of it. Do you want me to start linking, for example, law school texts regarding Article 1 Section 8? Go back and read Article 1 Section 8.
Regarding the "CCP," by which I assume you are referring to the Cyrillic letters that correspond to "SSR." The USSR had a government based on socialist principles more or less as described by Marx. This form of government is based on the idea that, somehow, government has the ability to make everyone the same and that everyone who is properly educated in communist philosophy will voluntarily work for the good of everyone else without compensation. The purest form of communism is unworkable and no government has ever imposed it. What happens is that Communist governments take over control of the economy and become very heavy handed in suppressing dissent (that is, the protests of people who don't want government control of every aspect of their lives).
If technology is applied science, and "technocracy" is a government informed by science, then the USSR was about as far from that as they could be. They tried to force science, especially biology, to fit a narrative that promotes socialism. The problem with science is that it's based on observations of the physical world and cannot be forced to fit a socialist philosophy. Because of the attempts to force science to fit socialism, Russia fell very far behind developed countries in terms of scientific progress and is still, to this day, trying to catch up.
Finally, read the Constitution before you try to say anything else you think is in the Constitution. The Constitution only says that the powers it does not define as federal powers are relegated to the states. It says nothing about state health departments not being answerable to federal health agencies. They absolutely are. All state health departments report to the CDC.
This speaks volumes about your own insecurity.
And your character, since you have decided to become a collaborator (even to the point of dishonestly implying you were in a first-name basis with Dr. Malone, and trying to use that to bolster your credibility, then throwing him under the bus and calling him various names like kook and charlatan, or at least blithely engaging in character association by trivially associating him with kooks, without either naming the kooks, or showing his actual literal collaboration with them.)
And even that doesn't matter; our enemies have no problem unpersoning and killing people at the drop of the hat, even if they had been good, faithful acolytes the day before. Not only are you a liar, but you are a despicable coward in the service of knowing liars.
The clot shots screw up the immune system.
Dance for us, Dingbat.
Have you ever heard the term "correlation does not equal causation"? That principle is VERY applicable here.
Every year, more than 795,000 people in the US have a stroke. The risk of stroke increases with age; 62% of strokes occur in people age 65 and over. (I assume your friend's father is an elderly man, if this is a friend you knew in high school years ago.) Stroke kills around 160k every year.
Since stroke is a fairly common occurrence and the third leading cause of death, it is inevitable that some people will have a stroke soon after getting vaccinated. That doesn't mean that the vaccine had anything to do with the stroke. It just means that fate decided they would have a stroke that day. Same thing with aneurysm. Those people would have suffered those cardiovascular events regardless of their vaccination history. Furthermore, people often appear perfectly healthy immediately prior to a major health event.
The cv19vx injury support groups are FULL of stories like this.
In other words, those "support groups" are full of people who do not understand the concept of correlation and causation. That does not constitute proof that common medical events are caused by vaccine. It only corroborates the fact that common medical events are common.
No pharmaceutical company can sell a drug unless the FDA has approved or authorized it.
The only way in which Moderna and the other vaccine manufacturers were able to give Covid vaccines to people prior to the EUA was in the context of a clinical trial. The laws are very clear and very strict on the use of drugs prior to approval or authorization.
Go look for the YouTube video (or rumble or whatever) of one of the C-level executives of Moderna chortling over how they went from near bankruptcy to rolling in the dough, *once the EUA was in place*.
So? If I were a CFO of a company that succeeded in getting approval of a drug after sinking billions into development, I'd be happy, too.
I found it. Like the Lancet article, like the SEC statement.
Neither of which you apparently read or understood, and neither of which you bothered linking.
Do you know why professional antivaxxers rarely link or provide valid citations to articles? It's because they DO NOT want anyone to read those articles. I assume you refuse to post the links for the same reason. They especially don't want anyone who understands the articles coming back and revealing how they lied about the content of those articles!
Oh, just in case you don't post links because you don't know how, here is an example of a link:
< a href="https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s27.html" >Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1< /a >< P >
I put spaces before and after the brackets so that they would show as plain text, rather than be processed as html links. It is really not difficult once you get used to it. When posted as html, the link looks like this:
The clot shots screw up the immune system.
Dance for us, Dingbat.
Dance more, Dingbat.
As every day goes by, more and more people are discovering the truth regardless of your false insistence on totally captured institutions.
Does it make you feel all moist to think of how you have ruined societal trust in science and medicine?
And speaking of not posting, Dingbat, you never posted your vaunted Excel spreadsheet.
Dance for us, troll.
Hi Dingbat.
You are now attempting to say that it’s raining while pissing down our leg.
By acting that correlation disproves causation.
Time to dance again.
Tell me more about immune systems.
How do they skip a grade?
How about extra credit?
What is the immune equivalent of being held back?
Hi Dingbat.
Martin Kuldorff (Harvard epidemiologist) once wrote he wouldn’t recommend the clot shots to anyone under 70, due to the relative risks of the clot shots vs covid-1984.
Can you remind me which quack remedies he is selling?
And why he suddenly left Harvard?
795,001 if you count Lauren Boebert!
Try not to get too excited.
Say, that gives me an idea.
I can make an Excel spreadsheet of strokes, and one of clot shots.
If they BOTH go up, it PROVES they're related.
Which is literally what you said about BLM riots and COVID cases, while telling me sententiously that "Correlation is not causation."
Dingbat.
You REALLY REALLY do not understand causal relationships, do you?
Correlation is not causation, non-causal relationship: People eat more ice cream in the summer. There are more deaths by drowning in the summer. These are correlated, yet eating ice cream does not cause people to drown. The correlation is that they both increase in summer.
Correlation is causation, causal relationship: Respiratory diseases spread among people in close proximity breathing each other's breath. During BLM riots, people were in close proximity, breathing each other's breath. Therefore, the spread of respiratory illness (Covid) is directly caused by rioters being in close proximity to each other.
Yes, I get it. Science has so many nuances that make it difficult to understand. But you can at least try, can't you?
You yourself said, and I quote verbatim by cut-and-paste
We know that social distancing is necessary to minimize exposure to an infected person who is actively shedding virus
followed by
By June 2, public health authorities were expressing (justifiable) concern about protestors spreading Covid. The subsequent rise in Covid cases is, therefore, directly attributable to the BLM riots, based on the events and the known mechanism of infection.
You know what's missing?
Any hard proof that the people infected were the same people as attended the riots.
Any information about the number of people at the riots who were carrying the virus *and* shedding sufficient quantities of the virus to infect others *and* proof that they came close enough to others that the transmission occurred *and* proof that those in proximity to the (hypothesized but not proven!) infected, were themselves vulnerable to the virus that their exposure would lead to infection.
You got an epidemiological "plausible".
Further, you admit your spreadsheet doesn't even capture case data at as broad a level of granularity as zip code.
But don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining and pretend that this is proof, instead of just correlation.
Again your double standard for when you allow the conflation of definitions and invalid conclusions (a long a they advance the narrative), juxtaposed with pretending to be rigorous towards anyband all mentions of jab injuries, is a staggering case of intellectual dishonesty.
One which would get any real scientists thrown out on their ear.
Incidentally, you never supplied your spreadsheet.
And you never proved the "cases" were verified by a reliable method, we only have the lying CDC's numbers.
Dingbat.
That’s interesting, because I have 30 years working in statistics and empirical modeling. I’m not a PhD or an expert, but I do understand the concept of signal vs noise. You know who our sharpest consultants are, in general? Masters degreed people. They tend to combine practical and theoretical well. Some of the PhDs are good too, but they often fail when looking at data which does not match their theory. I know all about massaging data, excluding outliers, having a sense of how human error + test equipment reproducibility affects model quality both from a steady state and dynamic sense. G.E.P Box once wrote: all models are incorrect, but some are useful. Right. Some are useful. If they weren’t useful, the price of many things which are manufactured by optimized computer controls would go up a bunch. I’ve seen very shitty test data used to commission control systems. I’ve seen chance unmeasured disturbances completely overwhelm signal. Modern conventional medicine, outside of emergency/trauma medicine is mostly a joke. Pharma studies are a joke in comparison to the standards I am required to follow in my job. Even lots of studies of natural products are not convincing to me. But vaccine “science” takes the cake. NO true placebo controls going back decades. Ascribing public health improvements to the various vx, which happened years before the vx, is a prime example. It is fraudulent and arguably criminal. But the cv19vx is the creme de la creme of garbage research and falsified results. I could have designed a proper test of vxd vs unvxd but it would have required at least 5 years of data. And it would have been very expensive. Back to the subject at hand...the purported AEs are a safety signal. Huge red flag. You cannot say that they were not the vx. And we cannot say that they were, 100%. Fine. But the cautionary principle requires that we have proper long term clean trial data for both vxd and unvxd. We don’t have good data, because we didn’t allow MDs such as FLCCC to use their clinical expertise in both early treatment and hospital protocols such as MATH+. It would have given us time to do proper testing and evaluation. What we have now is a disaster, one which swung an election and may end up destroying the Republic. And you are in favor of both the narrative and what came after.
And vaccinating into the teeth of a pandemic?
Doctors and public health officials have known for a long time not to do that.
And ignoring or suppressing signals in VAERS which stood out like the Eiffel Tower?
And hiding internal evidence that the material from the clotshots went throughout the body, but telling the public it stayed at the injection site?
And removing the control arm by injecting the control group before the trial period was over?
And lying about the number of deaths in the experimental arm?
And covering up from the public the technology which made the original virus artificially engineered?
And attempting to force people to get the EUA jabs (against the law and informed consent)?
And covering up or lying about alternative modalities which would have prevented the EUA?
And driving up the case rates by putting sick patients in nursing homes in five states, ignoring the offer by the sitting President of dedicated military hospital ships instead?
And giving medical advice, "If you have symptoms, stay at home until you can't breathe. Then come in and get a drug which was so damaging, a trial on its use against Ebola was terminated because it was safer to risk Ebola than to take the drug." And making that drug the "standard of care?"
And slandering and destroying the career of those clinicians, MDs and scientists, who tried to call attention to any of the above?
Any one of those would be disqualifying.
All at once they deserve mass executions.
Including all of the "social media" influencers and trolls sent to to overcome so-called "vaccine hesitancy" (which is a made-up term designed by the subhuman vermin behind this whole thing)
Yep. What you said.
Latest is that the fedgov contracts under the Prep ACT prohibited mandates. Lawsuits have been filed. We shall see if a Judge has the courage to enforce these purported obligations as written, or if they will discover penumbras and projections to protect the leftist mo fcuker leaders who imposed them.
I spend too much time on social media, admittedly. I can tell you that virtually every person still rabidly defending the cv19vx is a far left puke commie. Some appear to be TrAntifa. I saw this recently in a post celebrating the conservative legislators who put individual freedom/liberty over Pharma/business interests in banning cv19vx mandates, public and private, without exception. They’re hopping mad...and I’m liking it.
Take a look at the pic.
This is who is leading the charge for the jabs (Reading between the lines, it looks like she was fired for the unofficial reason that she pushed for teens to get the clot shots, a total non-necessity).
She looks unhinged.
There was no need for a vaccine at all, of course, But giving it to anyone below age was especially egregious.
She tried to make the case that 14+ yr olds could decide on their own. This is typical for the far left in regards to medical and matters of “gender”. For them, the State has superior authority.
Oh but the “experts” should decide says DemMom.
Leftists and their fellow travelers need to fry.
In previous post I meant to write “below age 30”.
Now, use this same logic to calculate the relative number of spike protein molecules in your bloodstream (encased in lipid nanoparticles) directly from the clot shot, as opposed to being in a room when someone who has a mild case of COVID (we're talking general public, they're not in the ICU here), sneezes near you.
Dingbat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.