Anthony Fauci’s Support and Denial of Gain of Function Research

How is it that the same man who actively funded gain of function research actively denied funding it?  The answer, according to reporter David Zweig, is the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Here's an excerpt from Zweig's story at The Free Press:

During his decades as head of NIAID, Fauci oversaw the distribution of billions of dollars each year in research grants and contracts, some of which were awarded explicitly for what is commonly referred to as “gain-of-function research of concern.” This research involves manipulating viruses to become more transmissible and/or deadly in humans, with the hope that doing so might help advance development of vaccines and therapeutics against threats that don’t exist but theoretically might in the future.

As I previously reported in The Free Press, it is an intensely controversialpractice, with many scientists vehemently opposed to it. Kevin M. Esvelt, an evolutionary and ecological engineer at MIT, wrote in a 2021 opinion piece: “I implore every scientist, funder, and nation working in this field: Please stop.” Purposefully creating a pathogen that could wipe out millions of people—regardless of its hoped-for benefit—is “insanity,” global security and biodefense expert Dr. Laura Kahn told me.

Fauci has long been a vocal advocate for this type of research. And, despite pleas for it to stop, for at least a decade this dangerous research has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and NIAID. This connection was affirmed by Fauci, and is documented in published papers: NIH and NIAID are listed as financiers of the project in the acknowledgements of the most infamous gain-of-function study in history.

And I have documented that at least several NIH/NIAID-funded studies were involved in potentially creating more deadly coronaviruses.

There is no ambiguity: the NIH and NIAID have funded and supported this work. Yet Fauci, and his then-boss Collins, during the Covid years, repeatedly obscured and even outright denied their involvement.

Continue ReadingAnthony Fauci’s Support and Denial of Gain of Function Research

Corporate Media – Working Hard to Keep You in the Dark on the Nashville Mass Murderer

The Nashville mass killings were a big national story covered by all major news outlets. A vicious person gunned down three children and three adults at a school in Nashville. Immediately after the shootings, all of us wanted to know why the shooter fired 152 rounds, murdering six people. Back on April 3, CNN reported that the police "have yet to determine a motive."

But then, oops, we learned that the shooter was a trans person, meaning that lots of special rules kick in. The main rule: Even though the shooter wrote a long manifesto, it's important that we keep the manifesto secret. Government officials and corporate media outlets have marched in lockstep ever since.

Thus, at at NPR or MSNBC, you won't learn anything about the fact that three pages of the shooter's manifesto have been leaked. Back near the time of the killings, however, on March 28, 2023, MSNBC wrote:

A day after Monday’s shooting at The Covenant School in Nashville, we know much more about the shooter and the dead. But one question remains: “Why?” Why this school, why these victims, why was the shooter motivated to take these lives? The search for a motive is a logical one. There’s a deep desire to understand what pushed a person to carry out such a heinous crime, especially when three children are dead.

Now that three pages of the manifesto have been leaked, MSNBC no longer has any interest in sharing with us what the murderer wrote on those pages.

NYT, CNN and WaPo published stories reporting that several pages were leaked and that they are authentic, but none of these three outlets offer any specifics about what the three pages reveal. No quotes and no images of those pages.  The NYT focuses on how upset government officials are that three pages were leaked (without describing the content of the leaks).  CNN focuses on the alleged fears of some parents that release of the manifesto will harm people, including by "copycat attacks." CNN sanitizes the leaked pages, saying only:

The released pages use hate-filled language directed toward the school and children and include what appears to be a timeline of events seemingly leading up to the shooting.

And here's Google/YouTube, once again keeping us safe from knowing important things, such as the motives of mass killings, as Seth Dillon attempted to report:

What do we know from those three pages? To actually know the words the killer wrote, we need to turn to X (formerly Twitter): Steven Crowder writes:

BREAKING: Nashville School Covenant Shooter Audrey Hale’s “DEATH DAY” Manifesto Targeted “Cr*ckers” with “white privlages”

“wanna kill all you little cr*ckers”

“I hope I have a high death count”

"I'm ready...I hope my victims aren't."

"Ready to die."

Continue ReadingCorporate Media – Working Hard to Keep You in the Dark on the Nashville Mass Murderer

PBS Version of an “Interview” of RFK, Jr.

This is why so many Americans have no respect for so many "news" outlets. When RFK asks for specifics, the PBS interviewer changes the subject. He's now drawing more support than any independent candidate in the past 100 years and she asks when he will be ending his campaign and giving up. Total crap. Americans deserve better.

Continue ReadingPBS Version of an “Interview” of RFK, Jr.

Robert Malone’s Bleak Assessment of Where We are Headed

Compare this bleak assessment by Robert Malone to the fairy tale version of how government works that many of us learned in grade school. I wish I could disagree with Malone. I see no reason that any of these things are going to get any better, despite the fact that many intelligent and good-hearted people are out there fighting for free speech and government accountability.

Functionally, unlike either industry (market forces) or the military (failed wars), there are no external forces currently limiting the expansion of the dysfunctional, counterproductive and (frankly) parasitic behavior of today’s Executive branch. Legislative branch oversight has been emasculated by consent with lobbyists collectively clamping down the Burdizzo, and in 1984 the Judicial branch conceded its authority to serve as a functional check on Executive/administrative branch arrogance via the Supreme Court Chevron Deference decision. And like the Federal Reserve, the informal “fourth estate” (corporate media), which historically provided a separate and semi-autonomous oversight function, has also been captured by this permanent bureaucracy.

The administrative and deep state has been so successful in capturing and manipulating media and related communication (largely via CIA, FBI, CISA and intelligence community infiltration) that they are able to seamlessly deploy advanced modern propaganda, PsyWar technologies and financial giveaways to control all narratives and information which might otherwise cause the majority of the electorate to check their actions, and in this way they completely avoid accountability. The CIA, FBI, CISA and intelligence community have become enablers of administrative and deep state excesses and overreach. With this corrupted information ecosystem, there cannot be any accountability of the administrative and deep state. In cooperation with a variety of corporate and NGO partners via “public-private partnerships”, the executive branch has completely captured and co-opted all oversight mechanisms which could enable or enforce checks and balances. The “ballot box” is well on its way to being a mere inconvenience, because for the majority of voters the synthetic false reality projected by captured media is the only political “reality” they encounter.

This is how modern nation-states abruptly collapse. As one recent example, recall the history of the USSR and most of the former communist Eastern European states. Modern nation-states fail by suffocating under the weight of bloated unaccountable bureaucracies whose primary objectives are to serve and sustain themselves rather than to promote and defend the general welfare and security of the citizenry. The social contract is stomped into dust by the boot of an uncontrollably arrogant, authoritarian, self-serving bureaucracy...

Continue ReadingRobert Malone’s Bleak Assessment of Where We are Headed

Powerful Elite Colleges Refuse to Consider the Damage They Do Regarding Cancelation and Censorship

At The Free Press, Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott explore how it came to be that so many American Colleges have come to embrace canceling and censorship rather than free speech. Here is an excerpt from "How American Colleges Gave Birth to Cancel Culture: A new book shows how universities first embraced a system of social punishment that now pervades our everyday lives":

The First Amendment wasn’t created to protect the interests of the rich and powerful. After all, the moneyed and influential have historically been protected by their wealth and power. And the United States didn’t need a special right to protect the will of a majority—that’s what democratic votes are for.

In the end, the First Amendment is primarily needed to protect minority views, unpopular opinions, and the expression of those who clash with the ruling elite.

But on campus today, you’re likely to hear this argument turned entirely on its head—as if championing free speech is somehow doing the bidding of the powerful. But that’s only because academia doesn’t like to admit that it actually is extremely wealthy and influential itself, or that those who defend the status quo are defending an extraordinarily powerful American industry. . .

From a purely financial perspective, the higher education apparatus is among the wealthiest and most influential institutions in the world. But you wouldn’t know that from the way many in academia try to position themselves. Colleges and universities are far from the humble academic hubs they claim to be, but many in higher education have a hard time admitting it’s been a long while since they were the underdogs.

Academia’s free speech skepticism is part of a long history of powerful people undercutting the First Amendment. Given that elites seldom like limitations on their power (and particularly on their power to censor), it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the First Amendment was limited by judges and politicians from the very moment of its inception.

Continue ReadingPowerful Elite Colleges Refuse to Consider the Damage They Do Regarding Cancelation and Censorship