What Are You Not Admitting, Dr. Faustus?

Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research

Fauci Trump corornavirus covid-19 pandemic research NIH
Biomedical research ultimately protects public health, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, in explaining his support for controversial research. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Dr. Anthony Fauci is an adviser to President Donald Trump and something of an American folk hero for his steady, calm leadership during the pandemic crisis. At least one poll shows that Americans trust Fauci more than Trump on the coronavirus pandemic—and few scientists are portrayed on TV by Brad Pitt.

But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.

In 2019, with the backing of NIAID, the National Institutes of Health committed $3.7 million over six years for research that included some gain-of-function work. The program followed another $3.7 million, 5-year project for collecting and studying bat coronaviruses, which ended in 2019, bringing the total to $7.4 million.

Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.

SARS-CoV-2 , the virus now causing a global pandemic, is believed to have originated in bats. U.S. intelligence, after originally asserting that the coronavirus had occurred naturally, conceded last month that the pandemic may have originated in a leak from the Wuhan lab. (At this point most scientists say it’s possible—but not likely—that the pandemic virus was engineered or manipulated.)

Dr. Fauci did not respond to Newsweek’s requests for comment. NIH responded with a statement that said in part: “Most emerging human viruses come from wildlife, and these represent a significant threat to public health and biosecurity in the US and globally, as demonstrated by the SARS epidemic of 2002-03, and the current COVID-19 pandemic…. scientific research indicates that there is no evidence that suggests the virus was created in a laboratory.”

The NIH research consisted of two parts. The first part began in 2014 and involved surveillance of bat coronaviruses, and had a budget of $3.7 million. The program funded Shi Zheng-Li, a virologist at the Wuhan lab, and other researchers to investigate and catalogue bat coronaviruses in the wild. This part of the project was completed in 2019.

A second phase of the project, beginning that year, included additional surveillance work but also gain-of-function research for the purpose of understanding how bat coronaviruses could mutate to attack humans. The project was run by EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit research group, under the direction of President Peter Daszak, an expert on disease ecology. NIH canceled the project just this past Friday, April 24th, Politico reported. Daszak did not immediately respond to Newsweek requests for comment.

The project proposal states: “We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.”

In layman’s terms, “spillover potential” refers to the ability of a virus to jump from animals to humans, which requires that the virus be able to attach to receptors in the cells of humans. SARS-CoV-2, for instance, is adept at binding to the ACE2 receptor in human lungs and other organs.

According to Richard Ebright, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers University, the project description refers to experiments that would enhance the ability of bat coronavirus to infect human cells and laboratory animals using techniques of genetic engineering. In the wake of the pandemic, that is a noteworthy detail.

Ebright, along with many other scientists, has been a vocal opponent of gain-of-function research because of the risk it presents of creating a pandemic through accidental release from a lab.

Dr. Fauci is renowned for his work on the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 1990s. Born in Brooklyn, he graduated first in his class from Cornell University Medical College in 1966. As head of NIAID since 1984, he has served as an adviser to every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan.

A decade ago, during a controversy over gain-of-function research on bird-flu viruses, Dr. Fauci played an important role in promoting the work. He argued that the research was worth the risk it entailed because it enables scientists to make preparations, such as investigating possible anti-viral medications, that could be useful if and when a pandemic occurred.

The work in question was a type of gain-of-function research that involved taking wild viruses and passing them through live animals until they mutate into a form that could pose a pandemic threat. Scientists used it to take a virus that was poorly transmitted among humans and make it into one that was highly transmissible—a hallmark of a pandemic virus.(Emphasis added.) This work was done by infecting a series of ferrets, allowing the virus to mutate until a ferret that hadn’t been deliberately infected contracted the disease.

The work entailed risks that worried even seasoned researchers. More than 200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem, they said, is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident.

Dr. Fauci defended the work. (Emphasis added). “[D]etermining the molecular Achilles’ heel of these viruses can allow scientists to identify novel antiviral drug targets that could be used to prevent infection in those at risk or to better treat those who become infected,” wrote Fauci and two co-authors in the Washington Post on December 30, 2011. “Decades of experience tells us that disseminating information gained through biomedical research to legitimate scientists and health officials provides a critical foundation for generating appropriate countermeasures and, ultimately, protecting the public health.”

Nevertheless, in 2014, under pressure from the Obama administration, the National of Institutes of Health instituted a moratorium on the work, suspending 21 studies.

Three years later, though—in December 2017—the NIH ended the moratorium and the second phase of the NIAID project, which included the gain-of-function research, began. The NIH established a framework for determining how the research would go forward: scientists have to get approval from a panel of experts, who would decide whether the risks were justified.

The reviews were indeed conducted—but in secret, for which the NIH has drawn criticism. In early 2019, after a reporter for Science magazine discovered that the NIH had approved two influenza research projects that used gain of function methods, scientists who oppose this kind of research excoriated the NIH in an editorial in the Washington Post.

“We have serious doubts about whether these experiments should be conducted at all,” wrote Tom Inglesby of Johns Hopkins University and Marc Lipsitch of Harvard. “[W]ith deliberations kept behind closed doors, none of us will have the opportunity to understand how the government arrived at these decisions or to judge the rigor and integrity of that process.”

Correction 5/5, 6:20 p.m.: The headline of this story has been corrected to reflect that the Wuhan lab received only a part of the millions of U.S. dollars allocated for virus research.

from:     https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741

What Do The Experts Know?

LISTEN: CBC Radio Cuts Off Expert When He Questions Covid19 Narrative

ER Editor: How the Globalist Media Do It. In this case, Canadian.

Dr. Joel Kettner (pictured), a Manitoba doctor, professor and top health administrator and veteran of 30 years and 30 pandemics, expresses a number of concerns not only with the puzzling position taken by WHO, but also the deleterious social, psychological and economic consequences for the public currently underway. And provides some statistics from Hubei Province in China, which completely undercuts the whole fear-panic narrative. He is finally cut off by CBC interviewer Duncan McCue, who then completely changes tack by talking about … Trump.

Note that one of the invited doctors onto this radio broadcast is pushing for more ‘flu vaccines, as is the public health agency of Canada, which are correlating with higher rates of the very disease that they’re supposed to PREVENT. This doctor is also ‘terrified’ of COVID. That seems to be the narrative we’re supposed to accept everywhere: immense fear and Big Pharma solutions. It is certainly the case here in France.

The relevant part of the radio program runs for about 6 or so minutes (linked to below), and is worth listening to. A transcription is provided.

********

LISTEN: CBC Radio cuts off expert when he questions Covid19 narrative

OFF-GUARDIAN

A phone interview with a respected physician appears to have been cut short by CBC Radio when the Doctor went off-script

Dr Joel Kettner phoned into the March 15th episode of CBC’s Cross Country Checkup podcast to discuss the Canadian (and international) reaction to the Covid19 pandemic. He was in the middle of making a point about statistics when the host abruptly cut him off.

While the two invited guests were very much taking the governmental line on the threat of Covid19, Dr Kettner was striking a different tone.

To be clear, Dr Kettner is not a fringe or controversial character. He is professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.

He was interviewed on Global News in January, when the pandemic was first hitting the news.

His comments are informative and interesting, but the host’s reaction perhaps more so. Listen below (starting at around 1 hour 12 minutes in), or we have transcribed them for you.

LISTEN TO PODCAST HERE

CBC Radio – Cross Country Checkup, March 15 2020

Duncan McCue (DM, Host): Dr Joel Kettner is on the line from Manitoba. Hi, Dr Kettner welcome to Checkup. You teach at the University of Manitoba and are former Chief Medical Officer of Manitoba, I understand. So what do you think of how we are coping right now?

Dr Joel Kettner (JK): Well I don’t know what to think, frankly, but I’ll tell you what I do think. First, I wanna say that in 30 years of public health medicine I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this. I’m not talking about the pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we don’t always know what they are. But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I’m trying to understand why. I have to say that I really feel for my colleagues that are in public health practice. it is easy for me to sit in the armchair of my office and look at this and observe it, and be critical and have ideas. But I really feel for them for three reasons.

One is that the data they are getting is incomplete to really make sense of the size of the threat. We are getting very crude numbers of cases and deaths, very little information about testing rates, contagious analysis, severity rates, who is being hospitalised, who is in intensive care, who is dying, what are the definitions to decide if someone died of the coronavirus or just died with the coronavirus.

There is so much important data that is very hard to get to guide the decisions on how serious a threat this is.

The other part is we actually do not have that much good evidence for the social distancing methods. It was just a couple of reviews in the CDC emerging infectious disease journal, which showed that although some of them might work, we really don’t know to what degree and the evidence is pretty weak.

The third part is the pressure that is being put on public health doctors and public health leaders. And that pressure is coming from various places. The first place it came from was the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) when he said “This is a grave threat and a public enemy number one”. I have never heard a Director-General of WHO use terms like that.

Then when he announced the pandemic, he said he was doing it “because of a grave alarming quick spread of the disease and an alarming amount of inaction around the world” that puts a huge pressure on public health doctors and leaders and advisors and huge pressure on governments, and then you get this what seems like a cascade of decision making that really puts pressure on the countries and governments – provincial, state – to sort of…to keep up with this action that Dr Hoffman [an earlier guest on the programme] said that we are trying to avoid, or should avoid, which is an overreaction. I don’t know what is an appropriate reaction, but I do know that I am having trouble trying to figure this out and I…

[INTERRUPTED BY HOST]

DM: …So I’m sure that your medical colleagues across the country are probably nodding their heads when you say they don’t have enough data, that they lack data. I suspect health professionals around the world wish they had more data, whether it is testing rates, severity rates, all that kind of thing. So it’s probably a valid concern. But you mentioned that you are not confident with some of the literature with regard to social distancing and its effectiveness […] What is the basis of your concern then? If social distancing is debatable in your mind, what do you worry about then?

JK: I worry about the consequences of social distancing. I worry about people who are losing their jobs. I worry about interruptions with the healthcare system itself. There are many doctors in Manitoba in quarantine right now, because they have returned from other countries. I worry about the message to the public, about the fear of coming into contact with people, being in the same space as people, shaking their hands, having meetings with people. I worry about many, many consequences related to that.

If you look at the data for what we are actually dealing with, I want to give this example. In Hubei, in the province of Hubei, where there has been the most cases and deaths by far, the actual number of cases reported is 1 per 1,000 people and the actual rate of deaths reported is 1 per 20,000. So maybe that would help to put things into perspective, as to the actual rate and risks of this condition, because it is a lot lower in any other part of the world, including Italy, and certainly in Canada and the United States…

[INTERRUPTED BY HOST AGAIN, INTERVIEW OVER]

Many thanks to Cory Morningstar for bringing this to our attention. She is doing great work collating dissident voices on the coronavirus, follow her on twitter if you don’t already.
Correction 18/03/20 – The original version of this article incorrectly suggested Kettner was an invited guest of the programme, when in reality he phoned in of his own volition.

************

Original article

Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com

from:    https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/listen-cbc-radio-cuts-off-expert-when-he-questions-covid19-narrative/

Tell the CDC What YOU Think

As always, do your research.  There are lots of things happening right now much conflicting information.

CDC declares medical police state, announces power to detain the sick and punish those who do not comply

Medical police state

(NaturalNews) Sinister, hidden motives are being revealed at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The agency recently announced a new invasive plan for the “control of communicable diseases,” by detaining people suspected of being ill and then forcibly medicating them against their will.

The CDC’s new proposal, published in the Federal Register [#2016-18103], will give the agency police state powers, permitting CDC officials to detain and forcibly inject chemicals into anyone they deem a threat to public health. There’s no rationale for such detainments either. According to the proposal, the “CDC defines precommunicable stage to mean the stage beginning upon an individual’s earliest opportunity for exposure to an infectious agent.”

Who owns your body?

This proposal is an open declaration that the U.S. government now owns your body. At least that’s what the CDC seems to be claiming. The truth of the matter is that each individual has certain inherent, inalienable human rights that must be defended. Each human owns their own body, and should never be legally bound to become the government’s property for forced injections or experimentation.

Vaccines cause severe health problems; even the kangaroo court system set up by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program cannot keep up with the increase in cases of realized vaccine damage. Thousands of cases of such damage are dismissed by the court, and in spite of this, over 3 billion in select payoffs have been issued to vaccine injured families since the court was established. (The court basically functions to give vaccine manufacturers immunity from judicial accountability.)

CDC wants to hear from you

The CDC wants to hear from you about their proposed power trip rule. This is an excellent opportunity to tell the agency exactly how nefarious and overreaching their new proposal is.

If the CDC takes on these new powers, all they will need is for the media to build up enough public fear against some new strain of virus, for a new vaccine to be introduced and forced on the public. Anyone who dares to ask questions or refuse could then be forcibly injected and jailed. As the proposal reveals, “… individuals who violate the terms of the agreement or the terms of the Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release (even if no agreement is in place between the individual and the government), he or she may be subject to criminal penalties.”

Coordinated vaccine compliance plot unveiled

Be aware that there is a coordinated, global effort to indoctrinate and force people into vaccine and pharmaceutical obedience. You are not only viewed as a subject without rights, but according to internal WHO documents, you are viewed as an adversary who needs to be psychologically manipulated into believing in vaccine “science.” If this new CDC rule goes through, it’s not unrealistic to assume that any information you give out as you declare your opposition to forced injections could be used in the future to track you down and inject you against your will.

If this course of action sounds familiar, you’re probably thinking of the medical experimentation that was forced on Jews during the holocaust. When the Nazis claimed ownership over Jewish people’s bodies they eventually used police state power to round them up and do whatever they wanted with them in the camps. In essence, the CDC’s new rule gives the government authority to incarcerate Americans en masse, relocating them to camps to be medically experimented on with vaccines and other pharmaceutical products.

CDC doing away with informed consent

Personal protection (by whatever means) has never been more important, as the CDC accelerates this same type of Nazi ideology by claiming ownership over your body. Furthermore, it wouldn’t be hard to unleash a United Nations global police force into neighborhoods to round up vaccine dissenters. If the government claims ownership over your body, and has the military power to do whatever they want, people will take orders and do their jobs, no questions asked. As the document states,”When an apprehension occurs, the individual is not free to leave or discontinue his/her discussion with an HHS/CDC public health or quarantine officer.”

Finally, the document reveals that the CDC is doing away with informed consent altogether, (even though the American Medical Association still upholds it): “CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual’s consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part.”

Take action now while the CDC is still open to public comment.

Vaccine Exemptions

 

 

 

 

How to Avoid ‘Mandatory’ Vaccinations Through Exemption | Vaccination is Your Legal Choice

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
October 3, 2011

lawdictionary1 210x131 How to Avoid Mandatory Vaccinations Through Exemption | Vaccination is Your Legal ChoiceContrary to what state legislatures may lead you to believe, no one has the legal or moral authority toforce you or your child into receiving a vaccine. While the State has the legal authority to fully establish the use of vaccines, to receive a vaccination treatment requires your voluntary and informed consent. Therefore, despite the tricky wording of school officials and mainstream public health workers, there are a number of ways in which you can exempt yourself from receiving the ‘required’ vaccinations as set by school districts and workplaces.

In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to pass laws ‘requiring’ citizens to receive certain vaccines. Today, all 50 states have passed vaccine laws that ‘require’ proof of vaccination in order to attend daycare, elementary, junior and high school and college. What is oftentimes kept from you is the fact that all 50 states have medical exemptions from this rule, 48 states have religious exemptions, and 18 states allow for a philosophical or conscientious belief exemption.

To see what your state vaccine law says and how to apply for the appropriate exemption, check out the State Law & Vaccine Requirements page at the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).

Vaccination and U.S. Law: A Brief Summary

Medical Exemptions: All 50 states allow medical exemption to vaccination. Medical exemptions to vaccination must be written by a medical doctor (M.D.) or doctor of osteopathy (D.O.) and are usually reviewed annually by school or state health officials.

Since 1986, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have eliminated most officially recognized medical reasons for withholding vaccination (contraindications) so that almost no medical condition qualifies for a medical exemption to vaccination.

In most states, school or state public health officials can question or even deny a medical exemption to vaccination written by a doctor if it does not strictly conform to CDC and AAP contraindication guidelines

Religious ExemptionsAll but two states (West Virginia and Mississippi) allow religious exemption to vaccination. These exemptions are worded differently in different states and require different forms of written documentation that must be submitted to state governments supporting a sincerely held religious belief opposing vaccination.

Some states require a notarized affidavit or letter from a spiritual advisor attesting to the sincerity of a person’s religious beliefs about vaccination. The religious exemption is under attack and, in some states like New York, parents are being grilled about the sincerity of their religious beliefs by state officials and denied religious exemptions to vaccination so their partially or completely unvaccinated children cannot attend public schools.

Conscientious Belief Exemptions: 18 states allow conscientious, personal or philosophical belief exemption to vaccination. These states come the closest to protecting a citizen’s right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination in America.

They are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin

Vaccine Exemptions for Military PersonnelAll branches of the U.S. Armed Services provide medical and religious exemptions to vaccination, but those exemptions must be first declared before enlistment in the military.

If a military recruit does not clearly state a medical or religious objection to vaccination BEFORE joining the military, he or she gives up the right to object to vaccination during active military service. Failure to obey an order to vaccinate while on active military duty can result in demotion, imprisonment and involuntary discharge from the military, including dishonorable discharge. After enlistment, legal assistance is often required to successfully object to vaccination without being subjected to sanctions.

Vaccine Exemptions for International Travel: Different countries have different laws requiring vaccines to enter or leave the country. Most developed countries, including those in Europe, currently do not require visitors to show proof of vaccination. However, some countries in Africa, Asia and elsewhere may require certain vaccines to enter or exit. Click here to check the CDC website on travel vaccine requirements.

Other Vaccine Exemption IssuesVaccine choices also can affect adoption, immigration, child custody arrangements during divorce proceedings, eligibility for health insurance and government entitlement programs, and medical care. Children adopted from foreign countries as well as in the U.S. may be required by US law and adoption agencies to receive certain government mandated vaccines.

Immigration laws also contain vaccine requirement provisions. In cases of divorce, one parent may attempt to gain full custody of a minor child by using the vaccine choice issue as leverage. Some families have been dropped from medical insurance plans or barred from eligibility for government funded medical care and food supplement programs if children are not given all government recommended vaccines.

for more, go to:   http://naturalsociety.com/how-to-avoid-mandatory-vaccinations-through-exemption/

Cities that Have rejected Fluoridated Water since 1990

Communities which have Rejected Fluoridation Since 1990
“[I]n recent years, when towns and cities across the country have held voter referenda on fluoridation, its use has been rejected about half the time.” – Chemical & Engineering News, September 4, 2006

“While city councils and water boards tend to fluoridate when they have the power, the electorate is far more divided. Over the past five years, the practice was voted down in 38 of 79 referendums, from Modesto, Calif., to Worcester, Mass.” – TIME Magazine, October 24, 2005

“In about 60% of 2000 referenda held in the U.S. since 1950, fluoridation has been voted down.” –Chemical & Engineering News August 1, 1988

“The big cities in the United States were mostly fluoridated by executive action in such a way as to avoid public referenda.” – James M. Dunning, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, 1984. (Quote from: Social Science & Medicine 1984, vol. 19, page 1245.)

“The fact that nearly 3 out of every 5 communities which vote on the issue have rejected fluoridation, year after year, does in all likelihood represent a collective judgment on the part of the public that, when all things are considered, fluoridation is not an acceptable public health measure.” – Edward Groth III, PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, May 1973

“Avoid a referendum. The statistics are that 3 out of 4 fluoridation referenda fail.”– Susan Allen, RDH, BS Fluoridation Coordinator, Public Health Dental Program, State Health Office, Florida. May 7, 1990. (See photocopy of letter)

to see the list, go to:   http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm