COVID’s lawn gnome, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci may be suffering from the Wuhan virus after a couple of vaccines and two or three boosters (Tony Fauci, the Quadruple Vaxed, Double Masked Oracle of Nonsense, Has COVID) but he still appeared before a full committee meeting of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions titled An Update on the Ongoing Federal Response to COVID-19: Current Status and Future Planning. Rand Paul was also there, waiting.
Yesterday’s speculation was that Fauci may have been feigning sickness to save Paul. But technology enabled Fauci to be there.
Paul touched on two important topics. Fauci was questioned on the reasons COVID boosters are required for children, even though there’s no proof that they work. He exposed second, the racket in which some NIH scientists receive secret royalties payments from companies that they fund.
PAUL: Dear Dr. Fauci. The government suggests that everyone take a booster before they turn five. Did you find any research that shows a decrease in the death rate or hospitalization of children who have taken a booster?
FAUCI: What’s the situation right now? There’s not enough data that has been accumulated, Senator Paul, to indicate that that’s the case. I believe that the recommendation that was made was based on the assumption that if you look at the morbidity and mortality of children within each of the age groups, you know, 0 to 5, 5 to 11…
PAUL: It is not known if there has been any research on the effects of boosters in children’s hospitalizations or deaths. Antibody studies were the only study that was allowed. So they say, ‘if we give you a booster, you make antibodies.’ Now a lot of scientists would question whether or not that’s proof of efficacy of a vaccine. Doctor Fauci, if you give 10 vaccines or give patients 10 mRNA vaccinations and the patient makes protein every time or antibodies each time they do, does that prove that 10 boosters are necessary?
FAUCI: That is a bit of an exaggeration.
Fauci tries to throw out his tiny pigeon chest and ridicule Paul, but it didn’t work.
PAUL: That is what your committees and you use. That that’s the only proof you have to tell children to take boosters is that they make antibodies. So it’s not an absurdity you’re already yet like five boosters for people. You’ve had, you know, two or three boosters. It’s like, where is the proof? There is some information that older adults may have risk factors. For younger folks, there’s not. But here’s the other thing. The vaccine comes with some risks. There is a risk of myocarditis for adolescents 12-24 year olds who receive the vaccine in two doses. Both the CDC study and the Israeli one show this. It’s also in the VAERS study, remarkably similar for boys, much higher for boys than girls, and much higher than the background. The background’s about two per million. So there is risk and there are risks, and you’re telling everybody in America just blindly go out there because we made antibodies. It isn’t absurd to add that if you have 10 boosters, then you most likely make antibodies. If you get a hundred boosters, alright, that’s not science, that’s conjecture, and we should not be making public policy on it.
Paul makes the case for you to be banned from Twitter and Facebook. Paul points out that myocarditis is more common in certain age groups than it is for others.
FAUCI. So Senator Paul, to answer to the statement that he made in his opening speech, ranking member Burr said, let me talk about his staff members who traveled to Israel. If you examine the Israeli data, it’s clear that the shots had clear clinical effects. They were most effective in older people but they also gathered more information, which was helpful for people who are in their 50s or 60s. So there is clinical data.”
PAUL: Children are not the same as adults. Well, see, here’s the thing, you’re not willing to be honest with the American people. For example, 75% have been diagnosed with the disease in their childhoods. Why does the CDC not include it in its data? You can ask the question, you can do laboratory tests to find out who’s had it and who hasn’t had the disease. How common is COVID in children? Are they more likely to die or be admitted to hospital after being infected? What is the possibility, if your kid has had COVID, which is 75% of the country’s had COVID, what is the chance that my child’s going to the hospital or dying?
FAUCI: Senator, if you examine the deaths from children, it is clear that more people are dying after they have been infected than those who don’t have the disease. Senator, we also know from other studies that the optimal degree of protection… is to get vaccinated after infection. And in fact, showing reinfection in the era of Omicron and the sublineages that vaccination…
PAUL: But you can’t answer the question I ask. The question I ask is how many kids are dying and how many kids are going to the hospital who’ve already had COVID. The answer may be zero, but you’re not even giving us the data because you have so much wanted to protect everybody from all the data, because we’re not smart enough to look at the data. The CDC didn’t include information for the age category 18-49 when they released earlier data. They did not consider whether there was a benefit to health care for people aged 18-49. It was why it was left out. After critics raised concerns, the CDC concluded that boosters between the ages of 18 and 49 were not beneficial for health.
Now Paul moves onto a subject so touchy that NIH refuses to respond to Congressional requests for the information…and under the Democrats, they get away with it.
PAUL: Paul, I have a question. The NIH is refusing to divulge names of scientists receiving royalties or from which companies. From 2010 through 2016, 1800 NIH workers received 27,000 payments in royalty. This is something we are aware of. It’s not that you did it, we just forced you through Freedom of Information Act to admit. Over 193 million dollars was given to these… 1800 employees. You can’t tell me if you received any royalty money from an entity for controlling the allocation of funds in research grants.
This is the NIH’s definition of a reply to a request. pic.twitter.com/5ADzSjaKrm
— streiff (@streiffredstate) June 17, 2022
FAUCI: Well, first of all, let’s talk about royalties…
PAUL: No, that’s the question. PAUL: Have you ever been paid a royalty from an organization?
FAUCI: You know, I don’t know as a fact, but I doubt it. I would be happy…
PAUL: Well, here’s the thing is why don’t you let us know? Why don’t you reveal… how much you’ve gotten and from what entities? They refuse. We asked them. The NIH…we asked them the NIH. We asked them whether or not…who got it and how much. The respondent refused to say that they have redacted the information. Here’s what I want to know. It’s not just about you, everybody on the vaccine committee, have any of them ever received money from the people who make vaccines? Could you please tell me? Please tell me whether anyone on the committees for vaccine approval ever received money.
Paul’s question is critical and requires an answer. Is there a relationship between vaccine industry and people who decide about vaccination? It is worth billions or even millions of dollars. With more information becoming available, we can see that thousands of lives have been lost and severely affected by adverse vaccine effects. We almost need to use these boosters in our everyday lives. I believe that the fact that the NIH refuses to respond to a US senator’s request is enough to tell you everything you need about this relationship.
FAUCI: You’re interrupting while I’m answering the questions. Sound bite. Number one, are you gonna, let me answer a question. Okay. Let me now give you some details. First, the Bayh-Dole Act states that royalties received by people aren’t required for them to be disclosed on financial statements. Let me now give you some examples. From 2015 to 2020, I…the only royalties I have was my lab and I made a monoclonal antibody for use in vitro reagent that had nothing to do with patients. My royalties during this period ranged between $21 per year and 17, $700 per year. The average annual amount was $191, 46 cents.
PAUL: It’s all redacted and you can’t get any information on the 1,800 scientists…
CHAIR (riding to FAUCI’s rescue): Senator Paul, your time is up…
PAUL: Do you want to find out if it is?
CHAIR: Senator Paul. Your time has expired. I gave you an additional…
PAUL: …people got money from the people who manufactured the vaccines.
CHAIR: … two-and-a-half minutes (that was mighty big of you, Karen). The witness has now responded. We’re going to continue.
While the fireworks were missing (for instance, Rand Paul, Once Again, Blows Fauci’s New Old Fearmongering Narrative out of the Water), Paul landed substantive blows on the fake science, dishonesty, and duplicity that have become Fauci’s signature characteristics. He controls the data available to the public, so we can’t make an informed decision. That may be a useful short-term strategy for steamrolling the opposition, but it destroys the trust required of an effective public health bureaucracy (SPOILER ALERT: we don’t). While I understand the thinking behind the Bayh-Dole Act, that is, bureaucrats might be more inventive if they have a stake in what they are developing, the potential for abuse is so astronomical that it can’t be allowed to function without public scrutiny. While they’re at it they might also consider the relation between federal scientists and grants as well as future jobs at universities or companies that receive those grants.
As I wrote back in March (Fauci’s Latest Interview Sounds More Like a Swan Song Than a Prelude to a New Fake Crisis), I think Fauci knows the jig is up, and it is time for him to hang up his lab coat and retire. Fauci can read polls better than anyone, so he doesn’t want to be present at Congressional hearings presided over by Ted Cruz or Rand Paul without a political ally to help him avoid disaster.
About Post Author
