Covid-19 Lock Down Experiment

www.popsci.com/story/health/covid-19-strain-uk-south-africa/?utm_source=Camden+Contacts&utm_campaign=25710c915a-&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_387276506e-25710c915a-515252726#affinity=Health


Still can't figure out how this thread ended up on General BSU Athletics. It belongs on The Chug.

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s suspected web of deceit has grown even more tangled. So, too, does the legal jeopardy he could face.



Fauci, medical adviser to the president, has already been accused by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., of lying during a recent Senate hearing when he emphatically denied that U.S. taxpayer money was used for dangerous coronavirus experiments inside the Wuhan laboratory in China that might have caused the COVID-19 pandemic. Documents belie his testimony.



Now, there is newly revealed evidence that Fauci may also have given false or misleading statements during a House hearing a year ago that was examining that same funding.

An upcoming book by two Washington Post reporters details how Fauci resisted a presidential directive from the Trump White House in April of 2020 to cancel a research grant to a nonprofit that was funneling taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan lab.

Fauci knew why the order had been issued. President Trump was alarmed by various reports connecting risky gain-of-function research inside the lab to the outbreak of the deadly virus under the so-called "lab leak theory." The possibility that Fauci’s group at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) might have helped finance a man-made catastrophe was a frightening scenario.



The book describes specific conversations Fauci had with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as well as verbatim conversations with a longtime friend who pleaded with the medical adviser to defy the directive cancelling the funding. When Fauci and his colleague, Francis Collins, the director of NIH, balked at complying with the order, "The HHS general counsel told them to do it anyway and made clear it was a direct order from the president, implying that their jobs were on the line if they didn’t comply," according to the book.



In the end, Fauci and Collins relented and cancelled the grant of money. But when Fauci appeared two months later before a House committee investigating the matter, he seemed to be stricken with an acute case of amnesia. Fauci claimed he was utterly unaware of the reason why the grant was cut-off.



"Why was it canceled? It was canceled because the NIH was told to cancel it," Fauci informed committee members. "I don’t know the reason, but we were told to cancel it," he added.

Does Fauci’s testimony constitute a willful or deliberate lie to congress and, thus, the felony of perjury under 18 U.S.C. 1621? Yes, there is compelling evidence he was not truthful. At the very least, Fauci’s statements appear deceptive by design. This could constitute a different, but comparable, crime of knowingly making a false and misleading statement under 18 U.S.C. 1001.



There is more than sufficient evidence to justify a criminal investigation of Fauci by the Department of Justice. If the DOJ won’t do it, then congress can and should.

Why would Fauci deceive, mislead, or misdirect two legitimate congressional inquiries into a deadly contagion that infected 180 million people worldwide and caused closed to 4 million deaths? The answer seems rather obvious. Fauci had a motive to conceal incriminating evidence of his own possible involvement in the spread of a virus that ravaged the world. In short, he didn’t want to be implicated.

If Fauci’s group at NIH helped finance hazardous experiments inside a Chinese laboratory (known for its shoddy safety protocols) where a lethal pathogen escaped, he would most certainly be viewed as complicit in millions of deaths. Is it any wonder that Fauci devoted more than a year dismissing the lab-leak theory as implausible while blaming the virus on animal-to-human transmission in nature, despite no empirical evidence to support his hypothesis?

No one knows for sure whether COVID-19 was hatched in the Wuhan lab and then leaked into the environment. But this theory continues to gain currency in the face of thousands of tests that have failed to locate an infected bat population or identify a singular animal host.



It is imperative that competent, objective, and thorough investigations pursue the truth of what really happened. They must not be obstructed by scientists like Fauci who appear compromised by their own self-interest and may be prone to cover-up acts of misfeasance.

Isn't it ironic, 50 Texan Democratic State Representatives leave the state in order to avoid voting on an anti-fraud voting bill. Photographs of them on a private plane they took to Washington D.C. show them yucking it up while not wearing masks. Now 5 of them have tested positive for Covid-19. This Saturday, Vice President Kamala Harris dropped by Walter Reed Medical Center for a "routine" visit after meeting with the group of lawmakers just last week. Wonder if she had a Covid test? Maybe there is justice in the world after all.

Perhaps you can explain why the Tennessee political hacks have stopped promoting ALL vaccines, including polio and many other proven approved vaccines, some mandatory for decades in schools?

If you want to choose not to be vaccinated against Covid, despite all best evidence, choose to endanger the community and all those you contact, why would you not allow outreach and information about that risk to be available, and why target other vaccines?   This is a ban on information that is science based that is to be distributed to those who are eligible.

The irony here is that the concerns I voiced above that delta and other variants would be more hazardous are unfortunately proving true.

Our experience before vaccine was available was that we could avoid or mitigate the risk by isolation and masks. This variant is 200+ percent more transmissable, and our previous experience is not valid. Particularly when the "honor system" of masks only for the unvaccinated is proving the need for mask mandates, and new local measures which may include shutdown.

We are not only asking for a lot of serious illness, but taking the risk we see a variant result that is resistant to vaccines. Every unnecessary case is a chance for more mutation.