petzanpz a subscriber of my substack shared this good article in the American Thinker by Mark A. Hewitt; I decided to share and thank petzanpz: title "It Was Anthony Fauci’s Fault"; yes, but several
others too, but yes, and we drag the little devil Fauci & Birx & Walensky & Hahn & Jha & Malone & Bourla & Bancel & Sahin & Azar et al. into proper courts under oath to get answers
‘March 14, 2024
It Was Anthony Fauci’s Fault
This morning, the headline read on the Liberty Daily: Covid “Vaccines” Unleashed a 12-Sigma Mass Death Event. While the headline may be true, the other part of the article was completely false. To wit, it was Donald Trump’s fault because he unleased Operation Warp Speed. Ethan Huff @ Natural News didn’t do his homework.
What really happened, according to the published record, is that we have Dr. Anthony Fauci’s first reference to the development timeline for potential vaccines against what was then widely referred to as the “novel coronavirus.” It came in an article published by a biotech industry news website Biocentury on January 22, 2020 -- one day after the first COVID-19 cases were reported in the United States.
But there is more documented history of the beginning of the “novel coronavirus.” The conditions of the initial problem were accurately presented in a timeline from an ABC News report: "How Coronavirus Got Started":
December 31, 2019: The World Health Organization says a mysterious pneumonia is sickening dozens in China
January 11, 2020: China reports its 1st novel coronavirus death
January 21, 2020: The CDC confirmed the 1st case of SARS-CoV2 in the United States
Further review of the related literature, from a January 22, 2020 Newsweek article on SARS-CoV2 entering the U.S., without any other information to go on, we appear to have the strategic decision: Dr. Fauci is quoted as saying, “NIAID was partnering with Moderna to develop an mRNA vaccine.”
So, to be clear and accurate, on the reported day after SARS-CoV2 “novel coronavirus” was found to have washed ashore in America, reportedly in old folks’ homes, why did the undisputed world leader in infectious diseases make the unilateral health care decision that an unproven and experimental mRNA “vaccine” would be the magic bullet for SARS-CoV2, later named COVID-19?
Restated, if the goal in January 2020 was to stop a potential pandemic of SARS-CoV2, why did Fauci choose experimental mRNA technologies and an uncertain or lengthy development timeline as the nation’s response? What did he know that the rest of the planet did not?
In analyzing Presidential Decisions at the Naval War College, of which I am a graduate, we learned that Presidents didn’t routinely make unilateral strategic decisions but were assisted by their staff in the strategic planning of the nation’s response to a crisis; by staff who were well versed in strategic thinking and experts in the topics under consideration. We also learned that in cases of failed Presidential policy decisions, Presidents oftentimes acted unilaterally or politically, and did not use or heed the expert opinions of their staffs.
Very early in the response to a potential pandemic of SARS-CoV2 or COVID-19, it appears that Fauci acted unilaterally or politically and in haste; that as the ultimate decision maker at the NIAID, he declared, “NIAID was partnering with Moderna to develop an mRNA vaccine.” Not that there would be studies to find a solution. Isn’t there something simple to combat this novel coronavirus?
There is nothing in the related, publicly-available literature to suggest that Fauci’s staff was involved in the strategic planning of the nation’s response to SARS-CoV2. The lack of reporting suggests the NIAID was removed from strategic planning for any official response to the pandemic. Dr. Fauci had made the decision the day after COVID came to America: NIAID was partnering with Moderna to develop an mRNA vaccine.
The known evidence suggests the NIAID staff wasn’t consulted and were unable to provide key additional and helpful information, such as, in the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) 2005 study which found that chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. In hindsight, that may have been good information to know during strategic planning to respond to a potential coronavirus pandemic.
Was Fauci ignorant of or did Fauci purposely avoid consideration of the NIH study, one where his name appears as a contributor? It is hard to conceive that the world expert on infectious diseases was ignorant of the findings of the 2005 study that lists his name as a contributor. Of course, he will not recall. That would be a topic for a congressional investigation.
For clarification, the authors of that research reported: “…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage” and “concentrations of 10 μM completely abolished SARS-CoV infection” and “chloroquine can effectively reduce the establishment of infection and spread of SARS-CoV.”
Say what?
In a strategic planning exercise to consider what options would be available or best to respond to a pandemic, planners would be presented with options, that either an experimental and unproven strategy was the best demonstrated and available strategy or the findings of an NIH study which demonstrated there was an effective therapeutic treatment for a coronavirus.
Had Fauci and the NIAID staff conducted strategic planning on a potential pandemic approaching the shores of America, they would have likely determined that referencing their own study of 15 years, chloroquine and its milder derivative, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was a far better and immediately available therapeutic treatment for a coronavirus pandemic than an experimental, yet-to-be fully developed gene therapy.
So why did Fauci choose an experimental mRNA gene therapy which was granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) a year after the COVID-19 pandemic came to America but immediately available and effective therapeutics, specifically the off-label use of FDA-Approved HCQ (and ivermectin), was not considered an effective response to COVID-19 and was not even considered “available” under EUA? Congress and scientists are flipping and jerking around trying to figure that out.
World leaders sometimes make bad decisions. However, the unilateral decision of Fauci to have the NIAID partner with Moderna to develop an mRNA vaccine in response to the predictable COVID pandemic and not have the NIAID engage the FDA to grant EUA for the immediately available and effective off-label use of FDA-approved therapeutics that were already on pharmacy shelves has had devastating unintended consequences.
People can ignore the facts and blame the president all they want. But the decision to use an experimental, untested, and unapproved mRNA technology -- gene therapy -- condemned millions of innocents to die or suffer life-threatening side effects while the more rational decision to use inexpensive and effective therapeutics would have saved lives. There is no doubt if we had listened to President Trump on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, we would not have experienced a 12-Sigma Mass Death Event. We have Fauci, the CDC, NIAID, and the FDA to thank for that.’
Trump singed the secret contracts, Trump knew what the vaccines were and how deadly they would become. Trump has never had a vaccine shot, nor has RFK Junior and neither have I - reason, we are not silly. Trump calls himself "The Father Of Vaccines" but they are not vaccines and they never were: But, But, But - They are "vaccines", not "genetic experimental "MODmRNA" therapy - Actually
Scientists STUNNED by First Proofs of Contaminated DNA Getting Absorbed into Human Cells –“Sunak Better Watch Out” says Dr Bhakdi
By Patricia Harrity on March 15, 2024
Not wishing to poach, but you can read the rest on my free substack - AND antibodies do not exist either, they can't happen, so they don't in the latest articles I have posted - just another Big Pharma - Doctor's thing to get you to take their ModRNA made in a laboratory DNA changing Bio-Weaons
You left out the best part:
I didn't write this article but it brings up some interesting points. My question is, was fauci and birx part of a conspiracy created during the Obama administration to unleash covid on Trump's presidency?
I asked that question because they never ended G,O.F. funding that helped create covid.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/06/05/interesting-timing-obama-administration-lifted-block-on-gain-of-function-research-just-eleven-days-before-president-trump-took-office-january-9-2017/#more-212664
With people beginning to recognize that U.S. government officials and the intelligence community have been less than honest, and in some cases
downright lying, surrounding the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; and when we overlay the political motives in the background of mass narrative
deflection from media and other institutions; and when we consider the known lengths that people inside the U.S. government were willing to go in
their efforts to eliminate President Trump; discovering that President Obama’s administration technically authorized the restart of “gain of
function” research (biological weaponization of SARS virus) just days before President Trump took office… is way more than alarming. My hunch is
this link might even disappear.
An even larger backstory. Eleven Days before leaving office President Obama’s administration re-authorized funding for the creation of biological
weapons using SARS viruses. However, essentially this re-authorization was only kickstarting funding within the U.S. because the funding of
weaponization of SARS-CoV-2 never actually stopped in 2014. The media reporting on this is misleading, if not downright false.
In the original pdf guidance for the 2014 research pause of into weaponization of SARS viruses there was a footnote that everyone seems to have
missed: https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/gain-of-function.pdf Page 2...
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2017/01/09/recommended-policy-guidance-potential-pandemic-pathogen-care-and-oversight
JANUARY 9, 2017 AT 9:06 AM ET BY .
Today, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is releasing “Recommended Policy Guidance for Departmental
Development of Review Mechanisms for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (P3CO).” Adoption of these recommendations will
satisfy the requirements for lifting the current moratorium on certain life sciences research that could enhance a pathogen’s
virulence and/or transmissibility to produce a potential pandemic pathogen (an enhanced PPP).
Issuance of this policy guidance concludes the deliberative process launched in October 2014 by OSTP and the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS). At that time, OSTP and HHS asked the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), as informed
by feedback from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, to provide recommendations to help shape the
development and adoption of a new United States Government policy governing the funding and conduct of this category of research.
While NSABB deliberated, such projects were placed on pause.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fda-informed-consent-not-required-minimal-risk-studies/
A ruling issued last week by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — to implement a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act, signed into law in
December 2016 — makes it legal for clinical researchers to conduct research on human subjects without obtaining informed consent when the research
poses “no more than minimal risk.”
Clinical researchers no longer have to obtain informed consent from human subjects when their research poses “no more than minimal risk,” the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled last week.
The new rule amends FDA regulations to implement a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act, which was intended to accelerate medical product
development and “bring new innovations and advances to patients who need them faster and more efficiently.”
The final rule “allows an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than minimal risk to
the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects.”
It also allows an institutional review board (IRB) “to waive or alter certain informed consent elements or to waive the requirement to obtain
informed consent, under limited conditions, for certain FDA-regulated minimal risk clinical investigations.”
https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/gain-of-function.pdf
Interesting footnote:
New USG funding will not be released for gain-of-function research projects that may be
reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that
the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the
respiratory route. The research funding pause would not apply to characterization or
testing of naturally occurring influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses, unless the tests are
reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity.
fauci gave a speech the day after obama's executive memo stating there would be a pandemic during the next administration: https://twitter.com/atensnut/status/1702745357833191472
There are too many red lights here to ignore!