Following this exchange, Josh Rogan, WashingtonPostcolumnist was, to my recollection, the first in this paper toquestion Fauci’s probity.
Paul, who believes the evidence points to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), the world’s leading bat coronavirus lab, as the source of the outbreak, pressed Fauci about a scientific paper by WIV’s head bat researcher, Shi Zhengli. Arguing that her work modifying viruses to make them more transmissible to humans constitutes “gain of function research,” he accused Fauci of lying to Congress, a federal crime.
Fauci insisted that it “was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function.” He was using a specific definition crafted by the Department of Health and Human Services in 2017 when the Obama administration’s pause on gain of function research was lifted. “And Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly,” Fauci added. [snip]
…many scientists think Paul actually does know what he’s talking about. One of them is Rutgers University microbiologist and biosafety expert Richard Ebright, whom Paul quoted as saying this research “matches, indeed epitomizes the definition of gain of function research.”
Other scientists, even those who believe the lab leak theory likely, argue that Fauci is technically correct, although they note that the official definition is so narrow it enables anyone to avoid the review process Fauci himself helped to establish. In other words, if the oversight system for reviewing risky research is almost never used, what good is it?
But it doesn’t matter which “gain of function” definition you prefer. What everyone can now see clearly is that NIH was collaborating on risky research with a Chinese lab that has zero transparency and zero accountability during a crisis [snip]
Fauci also told Paul there’s no possibility the research in the paper Paul cited directly led to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but Paul correctly called this out as a straw man. That specific project was only one element of the U.S. government multiagency effort that for years pumped U.S. money and know-how into these Wuhan lab…
In an editorial, theWashington Postfollowed up, attacking the Chinese deceptions on the origin of the virus andslipping in a brief mentionof NIH’s role.
Biggest Covid19 lies from fake news media govt CDC, 99% deaths among unvaccinated, Side effects and breakthrough cases extremely rare, Greensboro News Record protects Gov Cooper (#2 contributor Pfizer) not public
“two papers published May 19 in the journal of Hospital Pediatrics found pediatric hospitalizations for COVID were overcounted by at least 40%, carrying potential implications for nationwide figures used to justify vaccinating children.”...The Defender
“it is universally known that children virtually never die from COVID-19 and given that children have a very strong immune system, they are more likely than adults to have an over-reaction to the shot.”…Dr. Steven Roth
“There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults. However, children should continue to have the recommended childhood vaccines.”…WHO
#AceNewsReport – July.24: The exercises, which took place between June 15 and July 15, were attended by Russia’s “big four” internet providers (MTS, Beeline, Megafon and Tele2), as well as Rostelecom, Transtelecom and ER-Telecom Holding: Russian authorities held exercises to isolate the Russian internet segment (Runet) from the global internet,
#AceDailyNews says that the Kremlin tests disconnecting Russia from world internetRBC news agency reports, citing sources and materials of the working group “Information Security” under Russia’s Digital Economy national program: The Russian Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications, together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was instructed to agree with the #BRICS countries on the creation of a parallel Internet, an independent system of root domain name servers (DNS), which would “duplicate” the existing ones.
A member of Facebook’s Oversight Board said that freedom of expression is not an “absolute right,” arguing it has to be balanced against other freedoms.
The Oversight Board was set up over a year ago to act as some kind of Supreme Court for Facebook’s content moderation decisions. However, critics argue it was created so that Facebook executives can distance themselves from politically sensitive content moderation decisions.
The board reviews some of the most controversial decisions made by Facebook, such as the indefinite suspension of Former President Trump following Jan 6. While it did uphold the suspension of Trump’s account, it criticized the indefinite suspension and gave Facebook six months to decide whether to permanently ban Trump or reinstate his account.
A member of the Oversight Board, Helle Thorning Schimdt, a former Danish prime minister, said “free speech is not an absolute human right,” during an event held by Politico Europe on Thursday.
Her remarks are controversial, particularly as Schimdt is taking a more European perspective towards free expression and, in Europe, free speech has unfortunately not traditionally been well-regarded and it clashes with the more liberty-driven approach in the US.
In EU countries there is also a “right to be forgotten” where people, including violent criminals, can have all content about them hidden from the internet, including on search and news articles.
The January 6th uprising at the capitol building during the convening of the Electoral College is one of the most mythologized events in U.S. history, despite it now only being half a year old.
One of the most politically impactful impressions of the Jan. 6 siege is the extreme dangerpresumably posedto the nation’s lawmakers.
After all, these were assuredly Trump supporters upset about the 2020 election.
What other reason would they storm the capitol building than to overturn the results?
Yet, there are numerous false assumptions that betray the mainstream narrative about the Capitol riots.
The real crack in the narrative begins with this: The Capitol building was evacuated because of the bomb threat, not because of the protesters outside.
How do we know this?
Because former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund testified to it earlier this year, although the major news media appears to have missed or ignored this salient fact.
“The discovery of a pipe bomb outside the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington on Jan. 6 prompted police to evacuate two congressional buildings, not, as was believed, the attack on the U.S. Capitol,” as the Washington Examinerreportedin February.
“U.S. Capitol Police learned of the discovery of two pipe bombs on Capitol Hill around the same time, just before 1 p.m. ET that Wednesday,” the report continued.
“Capitol Police responded to one bomb discovered by an RNC staff member at the organization’s office, just a few blocks from the Capitol.
Metropolitan Police Department officers responded to a second pipe bomb that was spotted outside the nearby Democratic National Committee headquarters.
Each department sent officers to respond, hurting the Capitol Police’s ability to secure the Capitol since MPD was called to the Capitol minutes after the bombs were discovered.”
“That resulted in the evacuation of two congressional buildings, the Cannon House Office Building, as well as one of the Library of Congress buildings.
So it took extensive resources,” former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund testified at a Senate hearing.
The fascinating thing about the RNC and DNC pipe bomb attempts is the FBI’s seeming lack of interest in actually apprehending whomever staged them.
While the FBI has been issuing public calls for assistance with locating MAGA grandmas and soccer moms who were at the capitol on Jan. 6, it has been reluctant to release video of a suspect that has been tied to the attempted pipe bombing.
FBI Director Christopher Wray was called to account for his agency’s handling of the Capitol riot investigation in June. Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ)asked Director Wrayto verify that no one at the event has been charged with “insurrection.”
“Director Wray, can you confirm that nobody arrested for the involvement in the January 6 riot has been charged with the crime of insurrection?” Gosar asked.
“Sir, I think I said in response to one of your colleagues, sitting here right now, I don’t believe there have been insurrection charges in any of the indictments so far,” Wray said. “But again, with 500 cases, I want to be sure…”
“I believe you’re right or I agree,” Gosar responded.
Thelegal definitionof the crime of “insurrection” can be found at U.S. Code 18 USC Ch. 115: Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities; §2383. Rebellion or insurrection. The definition is as follows:
“Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
Apublic searchof the charging documents for the 579 people charged over Jan. 6 activities at the U.S. Capitol building show exactly zero charges for “insurrection.” Furthermore, it does not show charges for “treason” or “rebellion.”
If this were truly a “coup” attempt or an “insurrection,” as the media continues to say, then surely those charges would have been brought. Instead, the majority of the charges thus far appear to be for crimes such as:
“Knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority”; “Unlawful entry to restricted building”; and “Violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.”
Serious charges — but not “attempted murder,” “plotting to execute a member of Congress”; “carrying an unauthorized firearm in a government building”; or “rebellion, treason or insurrection against the United States.”
The charges are pedestrian in contrast to the Democratic Party’s hyperbolic narrative, which has been echoed and amplified by an uncritical mainstream media.
Gosarcontinued to press Wrayabout the FBI’s investigation of Jan. 6 and touched upon the matter of the pipe bomb threats.
“I’m changing gears again, Director Wray, the FBI released several 30-second video clips of a suspected pipe bomber seeking the public’s help to identify him,” Gosar said.
“Two of the video clips begin and end with the suspect already in the middle of the frame. You know how long the suspect pipe bomber was there and which way he exited, but you have withheld that information from the public.
The FBI is in possession of the full tapes of the pipe bomb suspect and knows far more than the public about potential identifying details.
You have begged the public’s help in identifying this pipe bomb suspect. You even offered a $100,000 reward.
Why have you not released the full tapes if you truly intend to leverage the public’s help? Will you commit to releasing the full tapes to the public immediately?”
“No, sir, I can’t make that commitment,” Wray said.
“I’m very careful about making sure that we protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation, and when we share information with the public while asking for their help, it has to be done very thoughtfully with regard to both the solicitation for assistance as well as, again, the protection of the integrity of the ongoing investigation…”
“Well, I appreciate it,” Gosar said. The FBI had posted the following public flier about the suspect in an update on January 11.
“Well, what in conclusion, I again, urge the Capitol surveillance footage and the truth to be released in order to exonerate the innocent and provide justice and accountability for those who violate it.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record areport from a Revolver Newsregarding infiltration and incitement of the January 6 protest by federal officials without objection.”
It should be noted that Revolver Newsreportregarded alleged FBI informants and agents working the extremists at the capitol on January 6th.
In summary, there are still many things we do not know about the Jan. 6 event.
But here are a few more things we do know that do not fully square with the prevailing mainstream narrative. We know there was a ‘stand down’ order effectively issued that prevented the Capitol Police and the National Guard from full responding as if it were indeed a threat to the lives of the Congress members.
The Capitol Police’s Inspector Generaltestified in Aprilon the matter, but refused to give the name of the official who issued it.
We also know, as far as publicly available charging documents are concerned, that no one had a firearm inside the Capitol building.
We know these extremists were not all ‘Trump supporters’.
As a Reutersreportstated about the Boogaloo Bois, one of the extremist groups at the Capitol: “While most ‘boogaloos’ are libertarians who largely oppose Trump, Dunn said the group embraced the moment to strike against the government.”
Furthermore, the purported “far right” group hasallied itselfwith the“far left” groupBlack Lives Matter. We also know that there were some Antifa supporters in the mob, such asJohn Earle Sullivan, the filmer of Ashli Babbitt’s shooter.
It appears that the FBI’s interest in withholding at least 14,000 hours of Capitol riots footage, including video of the RNC and DNC pipe bomb suspect, is to keep the mainstream media’s “useful myths” about January 6 alive. What else could explain the FBI’s lack of transparency?
There are currently463,456 Adverse Eventsreported on the VAERS website . There are10,991 reported deathsfrom the COVID-19 vaccines listed at the CDC’s VAERS database. … But today’s media ignores these findings. They are not curious about these shocking numbers at all.Why is today’s media completely silent about this?
The US CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is self reported and the incidents are not verified, so be wary of its numbers, but it meanssomething. The covid vaccines would appear to be much more dangerous than other vaccines.Wikipedia: CDC cautions that it is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event, or how common the event might be. The media is becoming a laughing stock.
We havepreviously discussedthe extensive censorship programs maintained by Big Tech, including companies like Twitter and Facebook taking sides in major controversies from gender identification to election fraud to Covid-19. The rise of corporate censors has combined with a heavily pro-Biden media to create the fear of a de facto state media that controls information due to a shared ideology rather than state coercion. That concern has been magnified by demands from Democratic leaders for increased censorship, including censoring political speech, and now word that the Biden Administration has routinely been flagging material to be censored by Facebook.
White House Press SecretaryJen Psaki admittedthat the Biden administration is working with Facebook to flag “problematic” posts that “spread disinformation” on COVID-19. She explained that the Administration has created “aggressive” policing systems to spot “misinformation” to be “flagged” for the social media companies.
Obviously, anyone can object to postings. There is a greater danger when the government has a systemic process for aggressively flagging material to be censored. The real problem however is with the censorship system itself. We have seen how there needs to be little coordination between political figures and the media to maintain controlled narratives in public debates and discussions.
The concern is obvious that this allows for a direct role of the government in a massive censorship program run by private companies. There have been repeated examples of the censoring of stories that were embarrassing or problematic for the Biden Administration. Even when Twitter expressed regret for the censoring of the Hunter Biden laptop story before the election, there was an immediate push back for greater censorship from Democrats.
The concern is that these companies are taking to heart calls from Democratic members for increased censorship on the platform. CEO Jack Dorsey previously apologized for censoring the Hunter Biden story before the election. However, rather than addressing the dangers of such censoring of news accounts, Senator Chris Coons pressed Dorsey to expand the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing any views that he considers “climate denialism.” Likewise, Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to take the opposite meaning from Twitter, admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said that he was “concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded an answer to this question:
“Will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the runoff elections ahead?”
“Robust content modification” seems the new Orwellian rallying cry in our society.
The same problems have arisen on Covid stories. For a year, Big Tech has been censoring those who wanted to discuss the origins of pandemic. It was not until Biden admitted that the virus may have originated in the Wuhan lab that social media suddenly changed its position. Facebook only recently announced that people on its platform will be able to discuss the origins of Covid-19 after censoring any such discussion.
The back channel coordination with Facebook further supports the view that this is a de facto state-supporting censorship program. That is the basis for the recent lawsuit by former President Donald Trump. As I have previously noted, there is ample basis for objection to this arrangement but the legal avenue for challenges is far from clear. The lawsuit will face difficult, if not insurmountable, problems under existing law and precedent. There is no question companies like Twitter are engaging in raw censorship. It is also true that these companies have censored material with a blatantly biased agenda, taking sides on scientific and social controversies. A strong case can be made for stripping these companies of legal protections since they are no longer neutral platforms. However, private businesses are allowed to regulate speech as a general matter. It will take considerable heavy lifting for a court to order this injunctive relief.
That is why we need legislative action. That includes removal immunity protections. However, the government should also consider how to incentivize the creation of alternatives to these companies which are now a threat to our political system. A few companies now control a huge amount of the political discourse in this country and have shown a clear bias in taking sides (even on issues later found to be wrong). Since litigation is likely to fail, legislation would seem an imperative. Congress has been spending hundreds of billions with utter abandon. Yet, there is little discussion over a government subsidized platform for social media or other measures to break up this unprecedented level of corporate control over our political discourse. I am no fan of government programs, particularly as it relates to media. However, Apple, Google, and these other companies are now operating like monopolies, including crushing competitors like Parlor. That is a direct and growing threat to our political process.
We need to consider a short-term investment in a social media platform that will focus any censorship on direct threats or criminal conduct. There is currently a lack of not only competition but any real opportunity for competition to challenge these companies. Either we have to redefine what we treat as monopolies or we need to invest in the establishment of competing platforms that are content neutral like telephone companies.
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.
The actions by Twitter and Facebook on Election Day were reprehensible and wrong. That should have been sufficient cause for action by Congress. It is now growing more precarious and chilling by the day.
The Biden administration is now colluding with Facebook and, perhaps, other social media platforms — Jen Psaki says that anyone who is banned from one site should be banned from all — to shut down any discussion of the pros and cons of anti-covid vaccination as “misinformation.”
Any suggestion that the vaccine might not be for everyone is, according to Joe Biden, “killing people.”
How soon they expect us to forget! Just one year ago, both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were cautioning Americans against taking anti-covid vaccines because they were developed under President Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed.”
Here’s a mashup of VACCINE MISINFORMATION from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.