Treason against your own country and citizen population is ugly enough but when considered in conjunction with the global crimes against humanity (one of which was the coordinated refusal to provide one of the world’s most tested, effectively used and relied upon medications for decades which could have easily prevented untold death and needless suffering), well it seems to me the maximum penalty would certainly be appropriate. This seems an especially valid position when the responsible parties are not just regular folks on the street who may have spontaneously used some situational bad judgement, but rather, these “we are science traitors” are highly educated, trained and INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE who apparently over a rather lengthy time period, intentionally engineered this virus as a gain a function biological weapon. Then, if not bad enough already, denied creating it and pushed a potentially dangerous treatment (incorrectly termed a vaccine incidentally) which increasing evidence suggests advanced another Leftist goal of global wealth redistribution. Follow the money. Traitors and selfish, greedy people are everywhere and tend to gather in positions where their attained legitimate authority and power can be wrongfully utilized for even greater personal wealth, authority and power. Follow the money. Guess time will tell. .
White House Chief Medical Adviser on Covid-19 Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, on Feb. 11, 2021. (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images) US News
New evidence has emerged that suggests that Dr. Anthony Fauci not only initiated efforts to cover up evidence pointing to a lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 but actively shaped a highly influential academic paper that excluded the possibility of a lab leak.
Fauci’s involvement with the paper wasn’t acknowledged by the authors, as it should have been under prevailing academic standards. Neither was it acknowledged by Fauci himself, who denied having communicated with the authors when asked directly while testifying before Congress last week.
The article, Proximal Origin, was co-authored by five virologists, four of whom participated in a Feb. 1, 2020, teleconference that was hastily convened by Fauci, who serves as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and Jeremy Farrar, who heads the UK-based Wellcome Trust, after public reporting of a potential link between the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China and the COVID-19 outbreak.
The initial draft of Proximal Origin was completed on the same day the teleconference, which wasn’t made public, took place. Notably, at least three authors of the paper were privately telling Fauci’s teleconference group both during the call and in subsequent emails that they were 60 to 80 percent sure that COVID-19 had come out of a lab.
Until now, it wasn’t known what role, if any, Fauci played in shaping the contents of the article, which formed the primary basis for government officials and media organizations to claim the “natural origin” theory for the virus. While the contents of emails previously released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show the Proximal Origin paper clearly conflicts with the authors’ private views on the virus’ origin, it was unclear if the authors had preemptively reshaped their views to please Fauci or if Fauci himself had an active role in shaping the article.
As the head of NIAID, Fauci controls a large portion of the world’s research funds for virologists. At least three virologists involved in the drafting of Proximal Origin have seen substantial increases in funding from the agency since the paper was first published. Any interference by Fauci in the paper’s narrative would present a serious conflict of interest.
Emails Show That Fauci, Collins Exerted Influence
Newly released notes taken by House Republican staffers from emails that still remain largely redacted clearly point to Fauci having been actively engaged in shaping the article and its conclusion. The GOP lawmakers gained limited access to the emails after a months-long battle with Fauci’s parent body, the Department of Health and Human Services.
The new emails reveal that on Feb. 4, 2020, one of the article’s co-authors, virologist Edward Holmes, shared a draft of Proximal Origin with Farrar. Like Fauci, Farrar controls the disbursement of vast amounts of funding for virology research.
Holmes prefaced his email to Farrar with the note that the authors “did not mention other anomalies as this will make us look like loons.” It isn’t known what other anomalies Holmes was referring to, but his statement indicates that Proximal Origin may have omitted certain anomalies of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, suggesting that the paper may have been narrative-driven from the start.
Dr. Anthony Fauci (R), director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks while U.S. President Donald Trump (C) and Vice President Mike Pence listen during a briefing on the coronavirus pandemic, in the press briefing room of the White House on March 24, 2020. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
During Fauci’s teleconference, participants had discussed at least two anomalies specific to the virus—the virus’s furin cleavage site, which has never been observed in naturally occurring SARS coronaviruses, and the pathogen’s unusual backbone, which fails to match any known virus backbone.
Farrar almost immediately shared Holmes’s draft with Fauci and Collins via email, while excluding other participants of the teleconference. The ensuing email thread containing discussion among the three suggests that the reason for the secretiveness may have been that they were shaping the content of the paper itself, something that has never been publicly acknowledged.
It’s notable that the email thread included only the three senior members of the teleconference. Using Farrar as a conduit to communicate with the authors may have been seen by Fauci and Collins as adding a layer of deniability.
Fauci, Collins Express Concern Over ‘Serial Passage’
During a Feb. 4, 2020, email exchange among the men, Collins pointed out that Proximal Origin argued against an engineered virus but that serial passage was “still an option” in the draft. Fauci appeared to share Collins’s concerns, noting in a one-line response: “?? Serial passage in ACE2-transgenic mice.”
Serial passage is a process whereby a virus is manipulated in a lab by repeatedly passing it through human-like tissue such as genetically modified mice, which mimic human lung tissue. This is notable given that during the Feb. 1 teleconference, at least three of Proximal Origin’s authors had advised Collins and Fauci that the virus may have been manipulated in a lab through serial passage or by genetic insertion of certain features.
Then-National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis Collins stands in Bethesda, Md., on Jan. 26, 2021. Collins stepped down in December 2021. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
One day after Fauci and Collins shared their comments, on Feb. 5, 2020, Farrar emailed Fauci and Collins stating that “[t]he team will update the draft today and I will forward immediately—they will add further comments on the glycans.”
The reference to glycans is notable as they are carbohydrate-based polymers produced by humans. The push by Fauci, Collins, and Farrar to have the paper’s authors expand on the issue of glycans appears to confirm that they were exerting direct influence on the content of Proximal Origin.
According to Rossana Segreto, a microbiologist and member of the virus origins search group DRASTIC, emphasizing the presence of glycans in SARS-CoV-2 might suggest that Fauci and his group were looking to add arguments against serial passage in the lab. A study later found that Proximal Origin’s prediction on the presence of the O-linked glycans wasn’t valid.
The newly released emails don’t reveal what additional discussions may have taken place among Fauci, Collins, and Farrar in the ensuing days. Perhaps that’s partly because Farrar had noted on another email thread addressed to Fauci’s teleconference group that scientific discussions should be taken offline.
Online Version Appears to Incorporate Fauci, Collins Suggestions
Eleven days later, on Feb. 16, 2020, Proximal Origin was published online. The paper argued aggressively for a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2.
An immediate observation from an examination of the Feb. 16 version of Proximal Origin is that “glycans,” the term that Farrar, Fauci and Collins wanted to emphasize, is cited 12 times. We don’t know to what extent glycans were discussed in the Feb. 4 draft as it remains concealed by National Institute of Health (NIH) officials.
An item of particular significance is that the Feb. 16 version omits any mention of the ACE2-transgenic mice that Fauci had initially flagged in his Feb. 4 email to Collins and Farrar. While the Feb. 16 version of Proximal Origin acknowledges that a furin cleavage site could have been generated through serial passage using animals with ACE2 receptors, the cited animals in the Feb. 16 version were ferrets—not transgenic mice.
The P4 laboratory on the campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, on May 13, 2020. (Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images)
The authors’ use of ferrets is peculiar not only because the term “transgenic mice” was almost certainly used in the Feb. 4 version but also because it was known at the time that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was conducting serial passage experiments on coronaviruses using ACE2 transgenic mice.
Even more conspicuously, the reference to ferrets was removed entirely from a March 17 updated version of the paper. In its place, a passage was added that stated “such work [serial passage experiments with ACE2 animals] has also not previously been described,” in academic literature—despite the fact that the Wuhan Institute’s work with ACE2 transgenic mice has been extensively described in academic papers.
Published Version of Proximal Origin Was Altered
Following the online publication of Proximal Origin on Feb. 16, 2020, the article was published in the prominent science journal Nature on March 17. In addition to the changes surrounding the transgenic mice, a number of other notable edits were made to strengthen the natural origin narrative.
On March 6, 2020, the paper’s lead author, Kristian Andersen, appeared to acknowledge the inputs from Collins, Farrar, and Fauci, when he emailed the three to say, “Thank you again for your advice and leadership as we have been working through the SARS-CoV-2 ‘origins’ paper.”
Perhaps most strikingly, the most often publicly cited passage from the March 17 version of the paper, “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” doesn’t appear in the Feb. 16 version. Additionally, while the Feb. 16 version states that “genomic evidence does not support the idea that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory construct” the March 17 version was altered to state that “the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus.”
Similar changes in language are evident in various parts of the March 17 version. For example, a section that stated “analysis provides evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct” was amended to read “analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct.”
A medical staff member gestures inside an isolation ward at Red Cross Hospital in Wuhan in China’s Hubei Province on March 10, 2020. (STR/AFP via Getty Images)
The March 17 version also omits an entire section from the Feb. 16 version that centered around an amino acid called phenylalanine. According to Segreto, a similarly situated amino acid in the original SARS virus had “mutated into phenylalanine as result of cell passage in human airway epithelium.” Segreto surmises that the Proximal Origin authors might have deleted this section so as not to highlight that the phenylalanine in SARS-CoV-2 might have resulted from serial passage in a lab.
Segreto’s analysis is backed up by the fact that another section in the Feb. 16 version which states that “experiments with [the original] SARS-CoV have shown that engineering such a site at the S1/S2 junction enhances cell–cell fusion,” was reworded in the March 17 version to leave out the word “engineering.” Indeed, while the Feb. 16 version merely downplayed the possibility of the virus having been engineered in a lab, in the March 17 version, the word “engineered” was expunged from the paper altogether.
Another sentence omitted from the March 17 version noted that “[i]nterestingly, 200 residents of Wuhan did not show coronavirus seroreactivity.” Had the sentence remained, it would have suggested that, unlike other regions in China, no SARS-related viruses were circulating in Wuhan in the years leading up to the pandemic. That makes natural spillover less likely. The director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Shi Zhengli, herself admitted that she never expected a SARS-related virus to emerge in Wuhan. When viruses emerged naturally in the past, they emerged in southern China.
Shi’s credibility already was coming under fire for failing to disclose that she had the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 in her possession for seven years—a point noted early on by Segreto. Additionally, the Wuhan Institute took its entire database of viral sequences offline on Sept. 12, 2019. Despite the Wuhan Institute’s documented deletion and concealment of data, Proximal Origin’s central argument is that SARS-CoV-2 had to be natural since its backbone didn’t match any known backbones.
However, even before the March 17 version was published, Segreto had stated publicly that Proximal Origin’s central backbone argument was inherently flawed, precisely because there was no way of knowing whether the Chinese lab had published the relevant viral sequences.
Fauci, Collins, Farrar Roles Improperly Concealed
The email exchange among Fauci, Farrar, and Collins presents clear evidence that the three men took an active role in shaping the narrative of Proximal Origin. Indeed, a careful comparison of the Feb. 16 and March 17 versions show that the changes made fail to reflect any fundamental change in scientific analysis.
Instead, the authors employed linguistic changes and wholesale deletions that appear to have been designed to reinforce the natural origin narrative.
Close scrutiny of the email discussions by the three scientists also suggests that there was no legal justification for redacting any of the newly released information in the first place.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, talks to members of the press prior to an event at the State Dining Room of the White House on Jan. 21, 2021. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Science journals require that contributions to scientific papers need to be acknowledged. According to Nature’s publishing guidelines, “[c]ontributors who do not meet all criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements section.” The newly revealed sections of the still-redacted emails appear to confirm that Fauci, Farrar, and Collins met the criteria for acknowledgement but their names have never appeared on any published version of Proximal Origin, suggesting that the three didn’t want their involvement in the paper’s creation to be known.
Collins Asked Fauci ‘to Help Put Down’ Fox News Story
A final email released by the House Republicans shows that Collins wrote Fauci several months later on April 16, 2020, telling him that he had hoped that Proximal Origin would have “settled” the origin debate, but it apparently hadn’t since Bret Baier of Fox News was reporting that sources were confident the virus had come out of a lab.
Collins asked Fauci whether the NIH could do something “to help put down this very destructive conspiracy” that seemed to be “growing momentum.” Collins also suggested that he and Fauci ask the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to weigh in. As was revealed in previous emails released under FOIA, Fauci’s group had pushed NASEM in early Feb. 2020 to promote the natural origin narrative.
Fauci told Collins that the lab leak theory was a “shiny object” that would go away in time. However, the next day, Fauci took responsive action when he categorically dismissed the possibility of a lab origin of COVID-19 during on April 17, 2020, White House press conference. In doing so, Fauci cited the Proximal Origin paper as corroboration of his claims. Notably, Fauci feigned independence, telling reporters that he couldn’t recall the names of the authors. Unbeknownst to reporters and the public at the time, four out of the five authors had participated in Fauci’s Feb. 1, 2020, teleconference.
Now, we know that Fauci had involvement in shaping the very article that he cited.
Fauci’s intervention at the April 17 White House briefing was effective, since media interest in the lab leak theory quickly waned. It didn’t resurface until May 2021, when former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade published an article discussing the likelihood of a lab leak. Wade noted that “[a] virologist keen to continue his career would be very attentive to Fauci’s and Farrar’s wishes.”
Notably, Segreto had raised a similar concern after Proximal Origin was first published in February 2020, asking whether certain virologists were scared that if the truth came out, their research activities would be curtailed.Jeff Carlson Follow Jeff Carlson co-hosts the show Truth Over News on Epoch TV. He is a CFA-registered Charterholder and worked for 20 years as an analyst and portfolio manager in the high-yield bond market. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed on Twitter @themarketswork. Hans Mahncke Follow Hans Mahncke co-hosts the show Truth Over News on Epoch TV. He holds LL.B., LL.M. and Ph.D. degrees in law. He is the author of numerous law books and his research has been published in a range of international journals. Hans can be followed on Twitter @hansmahncke.
Why not express what I (and millions of others) feel and believe about this global embarrassment while there is still some FREEDOM left in America under this LEFT APPOINTED DEMENTED fraud for a president!
(Now back to my regularly scheduled frustration with an ATV carburetor! lol)
The Financial Accountability for Uniquely Compensated Individuals or FAUCI Act, designed by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), is an excellent step in the right direction in identifying and rounding up such duplicitous self serving cheats and traitors to America. The public demands accountability from such scoundrels who have become wealthy while citizens have been subjected to a wide variety of unnecessary, anti-science, and Constitutionally unlawful dictates under cover of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Undoubtedly it is a very good thing that calmer minds prevail while addressing such outrageously wrongful behavior by US government officials. Especially behavior and activities by those who profess to protect the American public health while lining their own pockets with money from adversaries of the United States of America. Not to mention prohibiting the use of a decades old and trusted medicine to save the lives of those who so desperately required Ivermectin. Seriously, how could such intentional deprivation of such a life saving medication be anything but mass murder? If you were severely health compromised would you not want something effective and safe?
The link to the Ivermectin article is below the four red paragraphs I inserted in this post. Yes it is lengthy and difficult to read with all the medical and research method terms so I copied and pasted what I thought were pretty clear statements as to the medications positive use in regards to this COVID-19 pandemic which is becoming more suspicious as each day passes. Too bad so many people had to also pass because of such betrayal!
“…it is one of the World Health Organization’s Essential Medicines.4 With total doses of ivermectin distributed apparently equaling one-third of the present world population5 ivermectin at the usual doses (0.2–0.4 mg/kg) is considered extremely safe for use in humans.6,7 In addition to its antiparasitic activity, it has been noted to have antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, leading to an increasing list of therapeutic indications.8,….”
“The findings indicate with moderate certainty that ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 provides a significant survival benefit.“
“Given the evidence of efficacy, safety, low cost, and current death rates, ivermectin is likely to have an impact on health and economic outcomes of the pandemic across many countries. Ivermectin is not a new and experimental drug with an unknown safety profile. It is a WHO “Essential Medicine” already used in several different indications, in colossal cumulative volumes. Corticosteroids have become an accepted standard of care in COVID-19, based on a single RCT of dexamethasone.1 If a single RCT is sufficient for the adoption of dexamethasone, then a fortiori the evidence of 2 dozen RCTs supports the adoption of ivermectin.
Ivermectin is likely to be an equitable, acceptable, and feasible global intervention against COVID-19. Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and prophylaxis.”
HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE NEEDLESSLY SENTENCED TO DEATH BECAUSE FAUCI & ASSOCIATES WERE PUSHING A NEW INJECTION THAT DOESN’T EVEN MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A VACCINE?
TRAITORS TO HUMANITY?
Yup, calmer minds are much better than off-the-cuff emotionally charged comments. , I would have preferred a less delicate substitution for that acronym – maybe…
F uck
A ntiAmerican
U seless
C onspirators
I mmediately!
.
But you were already aware I had a DIM LAME echo chamber opinion, right? 🙂
My best to you and yours, Lew
.
but that’s just my blah blah blah “disgusted with he Left” echo chamber opinion.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser and head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks to a congressional panel in Washington on Jan. 11, 2022. (Greg Nash/Pool/AFP via Getty Images) Finance & Business Ties
By Frank Fang January 17, 2022 Updated: January 17, 2022 biggersmallerPrint
Dr. Anthony Fauci invested in the Chinese regime’s corporate “national champions,” large Chinese companies that advance Beijing’s interests and benefit from state policies, in a 2020 investment portfolio, according to recently disclosed financial records.
??Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) obtained the records (pdf) and published them on Jan. 14, which showed that Fauci had $10.4 million in investments, including holdings in several funds, at the end of 2020. One particular fund was named the Matthews Pacific Tiger Fund.
The fund invested 42.7 percent of its investors’ capital on companies based in Hong Kong and China, according to a fact sheet (pdf) published by the private investment firm Matthews Asia in September 2021. Those companies included Tencent Holdings, Alibaba Group Holdings, Hong Kong Exchange & Clearing, Ltd., and Wuxi Biologics Cayman.
The fund’s portfolio companies were initially reported by Breitbart.
Tencent Holdings, a Chinese technology and entertainment conglomerate based in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen, is best known for being the owner of popular messaging app WeChat. The app has drawn scrutiny from the U.S. government on national security concerns.
Tencent is also known for complying with the Chinese regime’s censorship rules in China and for extending its monitoring and censorship to U.S. users of WeChat.
Alibaba, China’s e-commerce and technology giant founded by billionaire tech entrepreneur Jack Ma, and Tencent were among several Chinese companies named in 2017 by China’s Ministry of Science and Technology on the communist regime’s “national team” for advancing artificial intelligence.
U.S. officials have warned about the two Chinese companies.
In 2019, Christopher Ford, who was then the assistant secretary of state for international security and non-proliferation, said China’s technology giants, including Alibaba, Baidu, and Tencent, have “become deeply enmeshed in Beijing’s system of oppression at home and its increasingly assertive strategic ambitions globally.”
Wuxi Biologics Cayman, a biopharmaceutical company listed in Hong Kong, has ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). According to a 2021 article published by China’s news portal NetEase, the firm was among several Chinese companies inking a partnership deal with the municipal government in Wuxi, a city near Shanghai, in forming a “party-building alliance.”
One of the things that the alliance would allow the participating companies to do better was sharing information on improving the “cohesiveness and competitiveness” of their “party organizations.”
Aside from the Matthews Pacific Tiger Fund, Fauci’s 2020 investments also include Pimco’s investment-grade bond fund and the Pax Ellevate Global Women’s Leadership Fund.
Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), provided the documents to Marshall after a request from the senator. The request came after the two clashed during a Senate hearing last week when Marshall confronted Fauci over his financial information.
After publishing the documents last Friday, Marshall accused Fauci of lying about them in a statement from his office.
“Just like he has misled the American people about sending taxpayers dollars to Wuhan, China to fund gain-of-function research, about masks, testing, and more, Dr. Fauci was completely dishonest about his financial disclosures being open to the public—it’s no wonder he is the least trusted bureaucrat in America,” Marshall stated.
The senator also announced that he will introduce the Financial Accountability for Uniquely Compensated Individuals (FAUCI) Act, so that financial disclosures filed by government officials would be more readily available to the general public.
The NIAID and Matthews Asia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Thought I’d share this updated pre-2020 election LAME project since it still seems applicable to this ever evolving (and unraveling) betrayal of OUR COUNTRY AND ALL HER LEGAL VOTING CITIZENS by LEFTIST DEMO-RATS, their minions and the “useful idiots” who followed the rest of that herd blindly. Ah oh…. did I just commit a potential gotcha by the left? lol
THE LEFT’S NEW AMERICA MEANS A NEW LANGUAGE REGULATED BY……? CARE TO TAKE A GUESS?
Words. This new America that the LEFTIST DEMO-RATS are illegally pushing on the rest of us is destructive in so many ways. Seems common usage of any word now runs the risk of being INTENTIONALLY misinterpreted and tagged for being inappropriate, mean, hateful, insulting, etc.,. This word/term censorship is said to protect and defend others. Really? That’s disingenuous in itself. aka, the real BIG LIE!
HOW DO WE LEARN?
Corrective criticism is fine, that’s how we traditionally learn but government censorship (executed through it’s proxy authorities such as former main stream media outlets ) is not about education and the proper use of words, much less protecting anyone (but themselves) but rather just a convenient method to eventually control, and/or stop, all communications that those in authoritative positions do not approve. Word usage is reduced to a form permitting much easier control of the “offending message” containing that “action word”. (Can you imagine a smoke signal communication by some indigenous people being flagged for the wrong color of smoke? Time of day? Incorrect spacing between plumes when such was not necessary for the recipient’s understanding? Or the “proper approved log” with which to audibly drum out your message? The color of a carrier pigeon’s plumage having an affect on the meaning of the message it carries? blah blah blah – it’s all about STOPPING THE MESSAGE dictators do not approve!)
SORRY, YESTERDAY THAT WAS PERMISSIBLE, BUT NOT ON TUESDAYS and THURSDAYS BETWEEN 2200-0300hrs
What’s especially convenient to these “language tyrants” (often uneducated themselves and only “enforcers” of what they have been told by their handlers as to what is permitted or prohibited) is that such “permitting or prohibition” of communication can change instantly without any semblance of a reasonable explanation for halting someone’s desire to communicate with others – except CURRENT AUTHORITIES DO NOT APPROVE OF THE COMMUNICATION.
WERE AUTHORITIES EVEN PRIVY TO THE MESSAGE DISAPPROVED? (Or just an officious intermediator?)
Rather like writing a letter to someone, attaching the stamp on the envelope, placing it in the mailbox, but rather than it being delivered to the addressee as anticipated you find it the next day in your mailbox, envelope opened with your letter corrected in red ink by an unknown person stating:
“You should rephrase or replace paragraph three because use of the term “rigged election” is prohibited and therefore cannot be processed through the government postal service. You will also need to purchase a new envelope and postage stamp at your cost and upon your second attempt at mailing (if you really want to do this) please do not seal the envelope in order to facilitate a more efficient processing experience. Thank you for using your government mail service”.
SO….
Was my use of the word “blindly” in the above sentence “….who followed the rest of the herd blindly”.,…an inappropriate use of the word “blindly” because some third party could “call it out” as some sort of a negative and hurtful meaning targeting those who are sightless and incapable of following others? These “censors” completely change the intended and accepted meaning of the word as used and twist the original, and obvious, thought process that utilized the word into something wrong that needs to be stopped immediately to protect those who are sightless. What? I certainly meant no disrespect to those that are blind, whether temporarily so, or permanent. In fact, I believe such individuals likely have a more tuned understanding and appreciation to other environmental variables that others with sight are essentially oblivious. Nothing sinister or intentionally harmful.
Know what will happen when multiple aircraft, flying in a tight high speed formation (requiring visual dependency upon the lead aircraft for information on how to keep safety spacing), “FOLLOWING THE LEAD AIRCRAFT” IF THE LEAD PILOT makes some mistake and plunges his aircraft straight into the side of a mountain? The others will likely follow to that same accident scene due to the short reaction time involved and dependency on the lead – not because they are stupid or poor pilots – but because that is how those maneuvers are accomplished successfully. Relying on your lead pilot’s skill and flight path.
LET’S GO BRANDON!
YOU ARE NOT MY PILOT AND I WILL NOT BLINDLY FOLLOW YOU OR ANYONE INTO YOUR DYSFUNCTIONAL LEFTIST-DEMORAT ANTI-AMERICAN SOCIETY PLAN (wonder how many politically correct errors I just made there? lol – but I digress again)
WHO SUPPORTS THIS NONSENSE? Naturally, there are undoubtedly those who truly in their hearts and minds believed Former Main Stream Media reporting/opinions. FMSM? Likely also some who felt “forced or cajoled into support” for one reason or another. News reports indicate some just sold their ballots. Whatever. Just saying, things are not always, especially motives vs actions, clearly understood unless you were standing in those same shoes. Obviously there are countries dedicated to such principles – (are the people too?) then seriously, why don’t these supporters of what’s going on now STAND UP and be counted, or go where they will feel more comfortable? I am also quite curious as to which countries would be acceptable to them. I’m not joking. Where would a better place to live be other than the United States of America?) . LEFTIST DEMO-RAT DISTINCTION
I use the “nice derogatory term” Demo-Rats because it is an attempt to make a distinction between “Classic Democrats” and the LEFTIST (Socialist, Communist, Totalitarian, etc. – whatever – ANTI-AMERICAN) ILK which infiltrated and hi-jacked the Democrat Party. (Certainly not the “democratic party”! Incidentally, how the heck did they usurp that contradictory-interchangeable name? Interesting how everything about that party has turned 180 degrees from reality and what they want and manipulate people into believing they actually stand for along with what will be the beneficial results of their leadership. Did you see where LET’S GO BIDEN attempted to wrongfully compare (in both respects) GOP representatives with historic Democrat racists and their activities? Could not have been a better ad for what is the underlying problem – democrats continually attempt to blame republicans for the actual democrat history of deceit and failure, with emphasis on racial relations and it’s penchant for slavery on a number of levels.) . There are plenty of patriotic Democrats who feel the DNC has abandoned them and their concerns, as well as the entire country. DEMO-RATS is an attempt (even if sorely inadequate to those who might be offended because they sound the same – but please acknowledge and realize – these transgressors to American society are in that party and using it’s influence and power), to separate and distinguish patriotic Democrats from those Radical Leftist-Demo-Rat traitors to America.
WHO ENJOYS BETRAYAL?
I sincerely sympathize with anyone betrayed by something in which they strongly believed and trusted. Been there, done that, just as many of you and although the particulars of each situation may be quite different along with the intensity or duration for each individual, it hurts just the same. I also believe it fair to say there are many of us on the other side of this equation who feel equally betrayed by the GOP in various ways. Probably like many, I am not a member because it fits perfectly with what I believe and how I want to life my life, but rather, it is the closest to that impossible “perfect fit” when compared to other alternatives which were hands down unacceptable, again, for one reason or another. . But I will tell you this, with Trump at the helm (or an individual with whom Trump places his confidence), it will be a straight R ballot response. I am embarrassed at the current LEFT DEMO-RAT appointed babbling representative in the WH. (Frankly I believe it to be elder abuse in the truest sense of the term and is quite illuminating as to the character of those who prop that failing man up everyday to squeeze out a few garbled confusing statements. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. But again I digress.) . Yup, it sure would be interesting to know everyone who supports this ridiculous and dangerous situation for the Greatest Nation in the world. Guess this pandemic also provides a convenient disguise against facial recognition since there are/were laws regarding concealing identity in public due to such being traditionally used in criminal activity to avoid positive identification of the culprit. Covid masks. How convenient during an armed robbery or riot.
. This of course, is only my LAME echoing chambered opinion. lol
The Supreme Court is seen in Washington on Sept. 21, 2020. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times) Judiciary
By Zachary Stieber January 13, 2022 Updated: January 13, 2022 biggersmallerPrint
The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for private businesses but decided to let a separate regulation that requires health care workers to get a vaccine take effect.
In a 6–3 ruling, justices halted the mandate for all private employers with 100 or more workers, ruling the states and companies that challenged the rule were likely to succeed.
Biden administration officials had argued that the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970 gave them the authority to impose the mandate, but a majority of justices disagreed.
“Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate. Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no ‘everyday exercise of federal power.’ It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees,” the majority wrote in a slip opinion.
The ruling came from Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, George W. Bush nominees; Clarence Thomas, a George H. W. Bush nominee; and Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, all Trump nominees.
Justices Breyer, a Clinton nominee, and Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both Obama nominees, dissented.
They wrote in their dissent that the law in question did not limit the labor secretary’s powers.
The majority “impose[d] a limit found no place in the governing statute,” they asserted.
“Not so,” the majority rejoined. “It is the text of the agency’s Organic Act that repeatedly makes clear that OSHA is charged with regulating ‘occupational’ hazards and the safety and health of ’employees.’”
While Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in an earlier brief did not dispute that OSHA is limited in regulating “work-related dangers,” she claimed that the risk of contracting COVID-19 qualifies as such a danger.
“We cannot agree,” the majority continued. “Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID-19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.”
Members of the Supreme Court pose for a group photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on April 23, 2021. (Erin Schaff/Pool/Getty Images)
The ruling means the mandate is blocked while the case goes back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which overturned a stay that had been imposed by a different appeals court.
OSHA is part of the Department of Labor.
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican who brought one of the challenges against the mandate, said in a statement the ruling was “a massive win for millions of workers and businesses across the country, including Doolittle Manufacturing here in Missouri, who would’ve had to shutter their doors if this mandate was not halted.”
“While we’re disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling on our lawsuit against the health care worker vaccine mandate, that fight is far from over, and the case is still ongoing,” he added.
Schmitt was referring to a majority of justices agreeing to lift lower court orders that blocked a separate Biden administration mandate, imposed by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
The CMS mandate, which does not contain a testing opt-out, covers over 17 million health care workers.
Congress granted authority to the health secretary to promulgate, as a condition of a health care facility’s participation in Medicare and Medicaid, requirements that he or she “finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services in the institution,” the majority of the court said in their ruling.
While a vaccine requirement has never before been imposed, “we agree with the government that the Secretary’s rule falls within the authorities that Congress has conferred upon him,” they added.
Justices falsely said that getting a COVID-19 vaccine would “substantially reduce the likelihood that health care workers will contract the virus and transmit it to their patients,” which does not align with studies and real-world data on the effect of vaccination against the Omicron variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.
“The rule thus fits neatly within the language of the statute. After all, ensuring that providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients is consistent with the fundamental principle of the medical profession: first, do no harm. It would be the ‘very opposite of efficient and effective administration for a facility that is supposed to make people well to make them sick with COVID-19,’” they said.
The narrow 5–4 opinion saw Roberts and Kavanaugh join the Democrat-nominated trio of justices while Thomas offered a dissent that was joined by Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett.
Thomas said that the government had not made a strong case that it was likely to succeed in the case, arguing the administration did not establish that the Medicare Act or any other law gives it the authority to impose a vaccine mandate in order for facilities to participate in Medicare or Medicaid.
“These cases are not about the efficacy or importance of COVID-19 vaccines. They are only about whether CMS has the statutory authority to force health care workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo. Because the Government has not made a strong showing that Congress gave CMS that broad authority, I would deny the stays pending appeal. I respectfully dissent,” Thomas said.
Cases involving the health care mandate will now go back to appeals courts for disposition.
Dr. Aldo Calvo, Medical Director of Family Medicine at Broward Health, shows a Regeneron monoclonal antibody infusion bag during a news conference at the Hospital in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Aug. 19, 2021. (Joe Cavaretta/South Florida Sun-Sentinel via AP, File) AMERICA
By Tammy Hung January 13, 2022 Updated: January 13, 2022 biggersmallerPrint
The head of a medical supplies company involved in the distribution and supply of monoclonal antibodies across southeastern and northeastern regions of the nation, told NTD in a Jan. 12 interview that government takeover of the monoclonal antibody supply chain has exacerbated backlogs and shortages.
“The way the products are being distributed right now, relying on the government to determine who gets what, that process can be very lengthy in terms of time,” Dealmed CEO Michael Einhorn said.
As a result, physicians are reporting “surpluses in certain areas, not enough in other areas” which has fueled frustrations when critical patients are not receiving antibodies for COVID-19 infections.
While it’s unclear how the monoclonal antibodies are being rationed among states, Einhorn said that “commercialization” of these products should be allowed, so that infusion centers that need them can order in products based on “patient volume.”
“If they have oversupply they wouldn’t order more,” Einhorn said, whereas when remedies are supplied by the state, “nobody’s going to say no the government” as the products are “free practically,” leading to mismatches in supply and demand.
“I find it very difficult to believe that, in a mere year, a governmental agency in a different state can figure out the dynamics of a local regional health care system,” he added.
One particular monoclonal antibody, sotrovimab made by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Vir Biotechnology, is in high demand as emerging reports suggest it is more effective than other products against Omicron.
Dr. Marc Siegel, a practicing internist and a professor of medicine at NYU’s Langone Medical Center, wrote in an op-ed in USA Today that “Omicron is most susceptible to sotrovimab, made by GlaxoSmithKline, but in most states, it is almost impossible to find.”
Monoclonal antibody therapies have been shown to be effective in preventing severe disease or hospitalization in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.
On Jan. 12, the Biden administration secured 600,000 more doses of sotrovimab for an undisclosed sum, bringing the total doses purchased by nations globally to roughly 1.7 million, according to Reuters. The additional doses will be delivered in the first quarter of 2022 according to GSK.
Since October 2021, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has delivered over 385,000 doses of sotrovimab to states across the nation.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Jan. 7 criticized the Biden administration that had cut Florida’s supply of the remedy in half, to 150,000 doses. DeSantis added that before the government “seized control of the monoclonal supply,” Florida was administering 30,000 doses per week.
Under the Biden administration’s COVID-19 “action plan,” monoclonal antibodies are listed as a “life-saving” treatment, “shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization by up to 70% for unvaccinated people at risk of developing severe disease.”
The plan also identifies the remedy as a “key tool to improve health outcomes, prevent hospitalizations, and reduce the strain” on hospitals.
