COVID's lawn gnome, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci might be suffering from Wuhan virus following a few vaccines and a couple of boosters (Tony Fauci is the Quadruple Vaxed Triple Masked Oracle Of Nonsense, and Has COVID), but he was present at a full panel meeting in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions that called for an update on COVID-19. Senator Rand Paul was there waiting.
There was some speculation that Fauci could be faking the illness to stay away from Paul but, thanks to the advancement of technology, Fauci was there.
Paul addressed two important issues. First, he confronted Fauci about why COVID boosters are needed for children when there's no evidence to suggest they have any benefit. Then, he exposed the fraud of some NIH scientists who receive some kind of hidden royalty payments from businesses they might be funding.
PAUL: Dr. Fauci, the government advises everyone to get a booster before age five. Do you know of research that shows an improvement in the rate of hospitalization or deaths for children who get boosters?
FAUCI: At this moment? There's not enough evidence that's been collected to show that it's the situation. I think that the recommendation that was given was based on the assumption that when you look at the mortality and morbidity of children across these age categories, like from 0 to 5, to 11…
PAUL: There aren't any studies. Americans ought to be aware of this. There aren't any studies of children that show an improvement in hospitalization or even death when they take a booster. The only ones presented were those that focused on antibody research. They say that if we give you the booster, you'll create antibodies. There are a lot of scientists who are questioning whether this is proof of the effectiveness of a vaccine. In the event that I give patients 10 mRNA vaccines and they produce proteins every time, or make antibodies every time, is that evidence to give 10 boosters? Do you think Dr. Fauci?
FAUCI: Not really, but think it's an exaggeration that is absurd.
Fauci tried to throw his small peteon chest to mock Paul; however, it doesn't work.
Paul: That is the evidence you and your committee employ. The only reason that you need to provide children with boosters is that they produce antibodies. It's not nonsense that you're already giving five boosters to people. You've been through, say one or two boosters. The question is, where's the evidence? In my opinion, there could be some clues of older people with certain risk aspects. For younger people there isn't. But, here's the second aspect. There are risk factors that can be triggered by the vaccination. There is a chance of developing myocarditis after the second dose given to adolescent boys, aged 12-24. This information comes from both CDC and also from an Israeli study. It's also found in the VAERS study. The results are very similar to girls. The rate is more so for girls than boys, and more than the baseline. Background rates are approximately 2 per million. This means there's risk, and you're telling everyone in America to go blindly out into the world because we've produced antibodies. This isn't an unreasonable corollary to say that if you have 10, then in actuality there's a good chance that you'll produce antibodies. If you have a hundred boosters, fine, but it's not science. It's speculation and shouldn't be making public policy regarding the subject.
In this video, Paul presents a case that could result in you being banned from Facebook or Twitter. Paul points out there is a risk for contracting myocarditis in certain age groups is significantly greater than the risk of the disease.
FAUCI: Senator Paul If I may answer the question you just heard in your opening speech, which was made by the ranking members, Burr speaks about his staff members who went to Israel. If you examine the information from Israel, the boosts that were given, that of the 3rd shot, as well as an increase in the shot number four, were connected to a clearly defined impact on the clinical, mostly for people who are elderly; however, they also collected more data as well as in those who were in their 40s and 50’s. There is evidence of clinical effects.
Paul: No, not in children. Here's the problem: you're not prepared to be honest with your fellow American people. For instance 75% of kids have been diagnosed with the illness. What is the reason why the CDC is not taking this into the statistics? It is possible to ask or conduct lab tests to discover those who have it as well as people who don't have the disease. What's the rate of death and hospitalization in children affected by COVID and then go into the hospital or die?
FAUCI: If you take a look at the rate of death in the field of pediatrics, Senator, you'll find the higher number of deaths among those who have been affected or those who have suffered from the disease. Senator, we have also learned by other study that the most effective level for defense… should be to be vaccinated following an infection. It is also true that if you show that there is a relapse in the time of Omicron and sub lineages that are vaccinated…
Paul: But you're not able to answer my question. The question I'm asking is how many children are dying and how many children are being admitted to hospitals with COVID. The answer could be zero and you're only providing us with the information because you're so eager to safeguard everyone from the data. We're not smart enough to take a look at the information. In the past, when the CDC released the data they didn't include the category of 18 to 49, not indicating whether there was health benefit to adults aged from 18 to 49. What was the reason for leaving it out? After the critics complained that it should be included, the decision was made due to the lack of health benefit to having a booster in the age range of 18 and 49 years of the CDC study.
Now Paul shifts to a topic that is so sensitive that NIH is unable to answer Congressional requests for information…and with the help of Democrats he can get out of the issue.
Paul: I have another issue for you to consider. The NIH is refusing to release the name of researchers who earn royalty payments and from the companies they receive them from. Between the years between 2010 and 2016, 27,000 royalties were paid for 1800 NIH employees. We are aware of this. We know this not because you said it to us; however, we forced you into telling us by utilizing the Freedom of Information Act. More than 193 million dollars were distributed to the… 1800 employees. Do you know if you've been paid royalties from any company that you've ever supervised the distribution of funds in research grants?
FAUCI: Okay, first we'll discuss royalty payments…
PAUL: No, that's the question. Have you ever managed, or have you ever received any royalty payments from a company and later managed to get money from the company?
FAUCI: I'm not certain of the fact I'm just unsure. I'd be content…
PAUL: Okay, so this is the question: why should we not know? Do you want to disclose… the amount you've earned and from what organizations? The NIH is refusing. Let's see, we have asked them. We asked them if they received it, who received it, and for what amount. They haven't told us that they had it in a redacted form. This is what I would like to be aware of. It's not only about you. Everyone on the vaccine committee: has anyone ever received any money from people who create vaccines? Could you confirm that? Do you know who members of the committees that approve vaccines ever received any money from any of the people?
The question Paul asks is an important one that requires an answer. What is the relation between the individuals who make choices about the use of vaccines as well as the industry of pharmaceuticals? Billions and billions are at the stake. As more information is made available, hundreds of thousands of people are destroyed or drastically altered due to the harmful effects of vaccinations and boosters. We must take action in order to move back to our normal lives. The reality that NIH does not reply to a request made by Senators and I believe that is a clear indication of what you should know about the relationship.
FAUCI: It's a distraction for me while I'm answering questions. Sound bite. Number one, are you gonna, let me answer a question. Okay. Let me provide you with some facts. In the first place, as per the rules, those who earn royalties aren't legally required to disclose these on financial statements, as per the Bayh-Dole Act. Therefore, let me give you some examples. Between 2015 and the year 2020 I…the sole royalties that I received was for my lab. I created a monoclonal antibody to be used in vitro as a reagent. It did not have anything to do with patients. In that duration, the royalties spanned from $21 to 17$700 per year. The average for a year of $191, and 46 cents.
Paul: The information is completely redacted, and you're unable to obtain any information about the other 1800 scientists…
CHAIR (riding to FAUCI's rescue): Senator Paul Your time is over…
Paul: We would like to know if or not
CHAIR: Senator Paul Your time has expired. I offered you an extension…
PAUL: …people made money off those who created the vaccines.
CHAIR: … 2 1/2 minutes (that was huge for you Karen). The witness has replied. We'll continue.
Although the fireworks were not there, Paul landed substantive punches at the false scientific method, dishonesty, as well as the shadiness that are now Fauci's trademarks. Fauci controls the information that is available to the public, which means we are unable to make an informed choice. It could be a great method for a short-term solution to get rid of opponents, however, it undermines the trust needed for successfully running a public health agency (SPOILER Alert: we don't need one anyway). Although I can appreciate the reasoning that underlies that Bayh-Dole Act, that is bureaucrats could be more creative when they are invested in the product they're developing but the possibility of misuse is so high that it is unthinkable for it to function in a vacuum without public scrutiny. While they're doing their thing, they must take a look at the connections with federal researchers, grant recipients, and jobs in the future at universities and companies that receive those grants.
As I wrote in March (Fauci's latest interview sounds more Like a Swan's Song than an Invoke of an upcoming fake crisis), I'm convinced that Fauci recognizes that the jig's up, and it's the right time to put away his laboratory coat to take a break. He is able to read the polls like any other person and one of the things he would like is to show up at Congressional hearings that are chaired by Rand Paul or Ted Cruz without an ally from the political side holding the gavel to protect Fauci from a calamity.