I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
00:08. Let's just get one thing straight. You don't have any rights under the Fifth Amendment because you've been pardoned as you very well know as the Supreme Court has been clear for a century or more, Brown versus Walker, 1896. " when he has been pardoned he may not stand upon his privilege." You know that. Your lawyer sitting behind you now shifting nervously in their chairs, they know it. This isn't about the Constitution. This isn't about the law. This is about contempt, contempt for this body and contempt for the American people. But I think I know why you're doing it, that is because you don't want to answer questions it's because you did all kinds of terrible things. It's because during the pandemic you got rich, didn't you? You got rich while people we're dying, hundreds of thousands of Americans, over a million in the end, and you were getting rich. And not only were you doing that, you were using federal employees with taxpayer money to apply for and solicit cash prizes for you personally, cash prizes totaling over a million dollars. You did all of that during the pandemic.
Joshua David Hawley (born December 31, 1979) is an American politician and attorney serving as the senior United States senator from Missouri, a seat he has held since 2019.
So far as we have records, it appears that Fauci's first change toward favoring lockdowns came in a Feb 27, 2020, email to Morgan Fairchild. Why? He believed that she was an influencer who could start preparing people for lockdowns. True story. https://t.co/Cs1vjFSFKYpic.twitter.com/2yOnXwuxhp
Dr. Death: What Will the World Think of Tony 'The Science' Fauci If and When This All Settles Down?
Lara Logan: "... Fauci will be known as the greatest mass killer in history once we get the whole truth, and once we get to the other side of this." pic.twitter.com/8GimER1CG6
— The Vaccinated Fox 🦊 (@VaccinatedFox) June 22, 2022
"You won't admit that it's dangerous, and for that lack of judgment I think it's time that you resign."
The NIH did fund gain-of-function in
Wuhan. Even the Chinese authors in their paper admit that viruses not
found in nature were created, and yes, they gained in infectivity. Your
persistent denials are not just a stain on your reputation but are a clear and
present danger to the country and to the world. As Professor Kevin Esvelt
of MIT has written, gain-of-function research looks like a gamble that
civilization can't afford to risk. And yet here you are again steadfast
in your denials. Why does it matter? Because gain-of-function
research with laboratory-created viruses not found in nature could cause a
pandemic even worse the next time. We're suffering today from one that has a mortality of approximately one percent that are experimenting with viruses that have mortalities that have approximately 15 and 50%. Yes, our civilization could be at risk from one of these viruses. Experiments that combine unknown viruses with known pandemic-causing viruses are incredibly risky. Experiments that combine unknown viruses with coronaviruses that have as much as 50% mortality could endanger civilization as we know it. And here you sit, unwilling to accept any responsibility for the current pandemic and unwilling to take any steps to prevent gain-of-function research from possibly unleashing an even more deadly virus. You mislead the public by saying that the published viruses could not be COVID. Well, exactly no one is alleging that. No one is alleging that the published viruses by the Chinese are COVID. What we are saying is that this was risky type of research, gain-of-function research, that it was risky to share this with the Chinese, and that COVID may have been created from a not-yet revealed virus. We don't anticipate that the Chinese are going to reveal the virus if it came from their lab. You know that but you continue to mislead. You continue to support NIH money going to Wuhan. You continue to say that you trust the Chinese scientists. You appear to have learned nothing from this pandemic. Will you today, finally, take some responsibility for funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan?
FAUCI, 2:52 Senator, with all due respect, I disagree with so many things that you've said. First of all, gain-of-function is a very nebulous term. We have spent, not us but outside bodies, a considerable amount of effort to give a more precise definition to the type of research that is of concern that might lead to a dangerous situation. You are aware of that. That is called P3CO
PAUL, 3:27 We're aware that you've deleted "gain-of-function" from the NIH website.
FAUCI, 3:30 Well, I can get back to that if we have time. But let's get back to the operating framework and guide[rails] of which we operate under. [wow, Fauci is carefully sparsing out his words.] And you have ignored them. The guidelines are very, very clear. That you have to be dealing with a pathogen that has shown, and very likely, to be highly transmissible in an uncontrollable way in humans and to have a high degree of morbidity and mortality and that you do experiments to enhance that. Hence the word, EPPP, Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens.
FAUCI, 4:25 According to the framework and guidelines,
PAUL, 4:27 So what you're doing is defining away gain-of-function. You're simply saying it doesn't exist because you changed the definition on the NIH website. This is terrible, and you're completely trying to escape the idea that we should do something about trying to prevent a pandemic from leaking from a lab. There's a preponderance of evidence now that points to this coming from the lab, and what you've done is change the definition on your website to try to cover your ass basically. That's what you've done--you've changed the website to try to change the definition that doesn't include the risky research that is going on. Until you admit that it's risky, we're not going to get anywhere. You have to admit that this was risky. The NIH has now rebuked them. Your own agency has rebuked them. But the thing is that you're still unwilling to admit that they gained in function when they say "they became sicker," They gained in lethality. That's a new virus. That's not gain-of-function?
FAUCI, 5:20 According to the definition that is currently operable . . . you know, Senator, let's make it clear for the people who are listening. The current definition was done over a two-to-three-year period by outside bodies, including NSABB, two conferences by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [National Academies] on December 2014 to March 2016, we commissioned external risk-benefit assessment. And then on January of 2017, the Office of Science and Technology of the White House issued the current policy
PAUL, 6:06 The definition appeared on the same day that the NIH said that, yes, there was a gain-of-function in Wuhan, the same day the definition appeared, the new definition to try to define away what's going on in Wuhan. Until you accept it, until you accept responsibility we're not going to get anywhere close to try and prevent another lab leak of this dangerous sort of experiment. You won't admit that it's dangerous, and for that lack of judgment I think it's time that you resign.
Dracula negotiating the definition of what bite means.
Good to see that PETA has been on the attack of Fauci and Collins for a while, for experiments like these.
90% of studies on animals ultimately fail to produce viable medications for humans. Yet, half of NIH funding goes toward experiments on animals. She said that animals are cheap, universities and agencies receive large amounts of funding to carry out these “experiments,” and most of them are done in secrecy.
(From PETA’s website: “To keep
driving the message home, PETA supporters in giant blow-up dinosaur costumes
have been following the president to various events carrying signs that read,
‘Biden: Don’t Appoint Another NIH Dinosaur.’”
PETA has finally spoken out against Dr. Fauci’s cruel
experiments on beagle puppies. When the news was first released, the agency was
banning anyone who tweeted them about Fauci, but now, PETA is calling upon the
Biden Administration to fire all National Institute of Health heads. Although
PETA certainly has [its] own extremist views on other topics, they are making
valid points about how utterly unnecessary these very expensive tests have been.
PETA Vice President Kathy Guillermo
appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show in 2019 and explained how 90% of studies on
animals ultimately fail to produce viable medications for humans. Yet, half of
NIH funding goes toward experiments on animals. She said that animals are
cheap, universities and agencies receive large amounts of funding to carry out
these “experiments,” and most of them are done in secrecy.
Newsmax directly asked Guillermo if
she thought Fauci should resign, and without hesitation, she said, “Yes!” As a
reminder, the Food and Drug Administration does not require animal testing to
pass new drugs. PETA has raised the flag and called for NIH Francis Collins to
resign for conducting similarly cruel experiments. Fauci’s experiments
“amounted to lies,” and Guillermo is now calling on Americans to urge President
Biden to remove Fauci from office.
Billions of taxpayer dollars are
going toward these experiments that have not produced any significant
improvements toward human life. PETA’s page to remove Collins notes,
“Eighty-nine percent of preclinical experiments can’t even be reproduced—which
is fundamental to good science—resulting in an annual waste of $28 billion.” An
annual waste of $28 billion is beyond alarming. Fauci has moved on to testing drug
concoctions on humans, and we need to wake up and realize that we have become
the new sample group.
This is incredible. The man appointed to the highest medical office in government also has his wife as one of his department's employees.
Lew writes:
Writes Ken McCarthy:
Lew,
Not only does Fauci’s daughter work for Twitter, his wife is Head of Ethics for NIH, something we reported in May of 2020.
Here’s the film we released in August 2020 about Fauci’s 40+ year career.
12:33It was a political proclamation of scientific truth. Robert Gallo successfully lobbied Margaret Heckler, who was the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to proclaim his view of what caused AIDS to be the absolute scientific truth. And she went on, with him in tow, and announced that. The conference was held before any of Robert Gallo's papers were published, therefore before any scientists had a chance to review them and look at the evidence to see if he got it right or wrong. And it was also done right when Gallo had patented the HIV antibody test. So they made sure that his patent rights were protected first. Then they did the press conference. And then, before Gallo's papers appeared in print, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services decided from now on we are only going to fund AIDS research that assumes that Robert Gallo's virus is the cause. We are not going to fund research into any other possibilities. Therefore, the scientists who might have wanted to critique Gallo's papers would not be able to do so at least not with anything supported by the federal government which is virtually all science in this country today.
13:57. When Bib Gallo proved it was the aetiological agent in 1984, we had a diagnostic test approved by the FDA in 1985. So the test was developed, it was gone through the appropriate validation, and was approved by the FDA. That was really quick, literally less than a year from the time that it was shown to be the virus that causes this disease.
Funny, he can't even mention AIDS, nor can he make a specific reference to the HIV virus.
14:25. Kary Mullis, 1944-2019. Just because Bob Gallo gets to take his fake sunglasses off and says, "Gentlemen, we've discovered the cause of AIDS . . . ." That's all we have, the New York Times article, CDC report. That's all he had. That's not enough. That's not enough to, you know, that is not sufficient to like publish even a meager little scientific paper somewhere. That isn't enough for scientists to believe in some inconsequential fact about some star 50 light years away. That's certainly not enough to treat at the cost of millions, billions of dollars a year and at the cost of a lot of lives and anguish and just destroyed you know lives that have been totally ruined by this thing on the basis of sine flimsy little statement made by a guy who's known to be a crook in lots of other ways. He lied about a whole lot of other stuff. Why are we trusting him? There was a witness in the courtroom, we wouldn't trust his testimony. We've caught him in too many lies. They don't trust him anymore.
15:26. Peter Duesberg Challenges the HIV Causes AIDS Theory.
[00:21] Shane Crotty, Ph.D., Virologist at La Jolla Institute for Immunology in La Jolla, CA concludes from his experiments that the amount of immune memory gained from natural infection would likely prevent the vast majority of people from getting hospitalized,
disease, severe disease for many years.In
this study, which was published in Science, Dr. Crotty, showed that antibody
levels stayed relatively constant with only modest declines within 6 to 8
months, Dr. Crotty reported notably that Memory B cells, specific for the spike
protein, or RBD, were detected in almost all COVID-19 cases with no apparent
half-life with 5 to 8 months after infection.In other words, Dr. Crotty found significant evidence of long-term
immunity after COVID infection.Furthermore,
Dr. Crotty noted that B-cell memory to some other infections has observed for sixty-plus
years after smallpox vaccination or even 90 years with natural infection with
influenza.That was a woman who got the
Spanish Flu and still showed immunity 90 years later.So, rather than being pessimistic toward
people gaining immunity after they’ve had COVID or had a vaccine, studies argue for significant optimism. In fact, there have been no scientific studies arguing or proving that infection with COVID does not create immunity. There've been no studies of significant numbers of re-infections of the 30 million Americans who've had COVID. Only a handful of infections have been discovered. In fact, the New York Times reported last fall that more than 38 million at the time worldwide had been infected with the Coronavirus and, as of that date, fewer than 5 of these cases had been confirmed by scientists to be reinfection. Scientists interviewed for the article concluded, "In most cases, a second bout with the virus produced milder symptoms or none at all." Given that no scientific studies have shown significant numbers of reinfection or patients previously infected or previously vaccinated, what specific studies do you cite to argue that the public should be wearing masks well into 2022? [2:27]
If you want a little insight into Fauci's credibility, give a listen to what Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, said about Anthony Fauci.
CoViD has pushed highly intelligent individuals to HAVE TO STUDY about virology & epidemiology, so that previous frauds in public health could be exposed. Kary Mullis, Peter Duesberg, Judy Mikovits and others were left orphaned when they tried to warn us, but it wasn't in vain. https://t.co/jqZus3149U
