Fauci admits there was no scientific evidence for 6-foot social distancing or masking children, concedes lab leak was 'possible'



Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted that there was no scientific evidence behind the 6-foot social distancing protocol or the guidelines for masking children, according to bombshell congressional testimony. Fauci also conceded that the lab leak theory is a "possible" explanation for the origins of COVID-19.

On Friday, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released 500 pages of transcripts of a congressional interview with Fauci that was conducted in January 2024.

During the interview, Fauci was asked if there were any scientific studies showing that the 6-foot social distancing guidelines were an effective deterrent to spreading the coronavirus.

Fauci – who was the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for nearly four decades – responded, "I was not aware of studies that in fact, that would be a very difficult study to do."

Fauci was a top leader of the White House Coronavirus Task Force under former President Donald Trump and the Chief Medical Advisor to President Joe Biden.

Also during the congressional interview, Fauci was asked if he recalled "reviewing any studies or data supporting masking for children?"

He replied that he "might have," but added, "I don't recall specifically that I did."

Fauci was then questioned if he had seen any of the scientific studies showing children wearing masks suffered learning loss as well as speech and development issues.

Fauci answered, "No. But I believe that there are a lot of conflicting studies too, that there are those that say, yes, there is an impact, and there are those that say there's not. I still think that’s up in the air."

During the interview, Fauci was asked if he believed that the coronavirus had the origin of a "laboratory accident" or if the lab leak was a conspiracy theory.

"Well, it's a possibility. I think people have made conspiracy aspects from it. And I think you have to separate the two when you keep an open mind, that it could be a lab leak or it could be a natural occurrence," Fauci said.

He continued, "I've mentioned in this committee that I believe the evidence that I've seen weighs my opinion towards one, which is a natural occurrence, but I still leave an open mind. So I think that in and of itself isn't inherently a conspiracy theory, but some people spin off things from that that are kind of crazy."

The subcommittee asked if we'll ever know the origins of the COVID-19 virus, to which he replied that the lack of cooperation from the Chinese government "makes it less and less likely that we'll ever know."

The release of the transcripts arrived just days before Fauci is set to testify in his first public hearing since his retirement in December 2022.

Fauci will testify before the House's COVID Select Subcommittee on Monday.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) said in a statement: "Retirement from public service does not excuse Dr. Fauci from accountability to the American people. On June 3, Americans will have an opportunity to hear directly from Dr. Fauci about his role in overseeing our nation’s pandemic response, shaping pandemic-era polices, and promoting singular questionable narratives about the origins of COVID-19."

BlazeTV host Matt Kibbe and his fact-finding team at Free the People have spent months investigating the origins of COVID-19 and how Fauci may have been lying during the entire pandemic.

Kibbe explained how things could go south for Fauci.

"A lot of Fauci deputies are starting to talk," Kibbe stated. "We had a former NIH director announce in testimony that of course we were doing gain-of-function research. So pretty much a smoking gun."

Blaze Media recently released the new docuseries, "The Coverup," which Kibbe said the investigative series will "shine light on the shadowy government figures who caused so much pain and suffering with their tyrannical overreach during the pandemic."

He contended, "They would rather we not uncover what really happened. They want us to just move on. Unfortunately for them, I’m not going to let that happen."

Watch the gripping trailer for "The Coverup" below.

The Coverup | Ep 1 Official Trailer youtu.be

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

FACT CHECK: Is This A Recent Image Of the Georgia Senators?

The image is from 2021.

Philadelphia votes to ban ski masks in public; faces accusations of criminalizing young black men



The Philadelphia City Council has approved a ban on ski masks in hopes of cutting down on the violent crime that continues to plague the Democrat-run city. The bill, which passed in a landslide vote 13 to 2, is now headed to Mayor Jim Kenney for ratification.

The city's attempt to deny anonymity to prospective murderers and thieves has rankled radical leftists who claim the ski mask ban criminalizes "fashion popular with Black and brown youth" and amounts to prejudice against "people of color."

The ban

The proposed amendment to the city code, originally introduced in June and cosponsored by 10 council members, states, "No person shall, with the specific intent to intimidate or threaten another person, or with the specific intent to hide one's identity during the commission of unlawful activity, wear a mask, hood, ski mask, balaclava, or other device or means of hiding, concealing or covering any any portion of the face for the purpose of concealing their identity on public property or private property."

If ratified by Kenney, the bill would prohibit the wearing of ski masks in any school building, recreation center, day care, park, and city-owned building, as well as well as on public trains, buses, and trolleys. Religious garb, holiday and theatrical costumes, and face coverings worn for protection while participating in sports are exempted from the ban.

Numerous states, including Florida, Georgia, and Virginia, have similar bans in place to keep potential criminals from disguising their identity.

The council noted in the preamble to the amendment that the wearing of ski masks became prevalent in the city around 2020, corresponding with "an uptick of individuals wanted by the Police Department who wore ski masks in the commission of a crime."

For instance, in June 2021, a pair of armed men in ski masks shot two people, one of them fatally. In September 2022, five masked individuals opened fire on a crowd at a junior varsity football game, killing a 14-year-old. In May, a thug in a ski mask killed a 15-year-old high school student on a public bus. Two months later, a gunman in a ski mask and body armor massacred five people and injured two children.

Philadelphia has had 383 homicides so far this year, according the Philadelphia Police Department. As of Nov. 26, there had been 497 reported rapes so far this year; 2,385 robberies involving a gun and 2,416 robberies without; 2,794 aggravated assaults with a gun and 4,585 aggravated assaults without; over 5,000 burglaries; 21,763 reports of stolen vehicles; 16,541 incidents of retail theft; 11,768 car break-ins; and 14,037 reports of unqualified theft.

According to Neighborhood Scout, the chances of becoming a victim of a property crime or a violent crime are 1 in 38 and 1 in 123, respectively.

"The use of ski masks by criminals to conceal their identities is both a public safety issues and a quality-of-life issue," said the preamble to the amendment. "Our quality of life suffers when residents feel at greater risk of experiencing crime while going about their daily lives in this City."

Those found in violation of the ban will be hit with a $250 fine. Those wearing a ski mask while committing a crime will be hit with a fine of up to $2,000.

"Oftentimes these ski masks are used to conceal criminal conduct," said Councilmember Anthony Phillips, the author of the amendment, reported WHHY News.

"We must do our duty and place the highest premium on restoring the public trust by having safer communities. This is what our neighbors have sent us to do," added Phillips.

Claims that unmasking criminals is racist

The bill was opposed by two council members, Kendra Brooks and Jamie Gauthier, reported the Philadelphia Inquirer.

"I can't in good conscience vote for something that I feel would further criminalize and marginalize young Black men in our city," said Gauthier, "particularly when I don't feel like, as a city, we've done enough to engage them, listen to them, and support them."

Brooks said, "My fear is that we're putting legislation on the books for a certain population that don't even realize that this is going to victimize them until it tarnishes the racial relationships between the police officers and young people."

Jetson Cruz, an activist with the Youth Art and Self-empowerment Project, which advocates against trying young offenders as adults, suggested the ban "is just a reason to target the young people."

"I've got to be worried about being stopped and harassed by the police for something I choose to wear," continued Cruz. "I've already got tattoos, and I'm already a person of color. It scares me."

The ACLU of Philadelphia, among the leftist outfits that have taken issue with this effort to unmask potential thieves and murderers, suggested both that the bill might violate expression rights and that police might exploit the ban as a means to harass pedestrians.

"This raises some serious concerns constitutionally," said Steve Loney, an attorney with the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "We've seen situations where just the knowledge that face coverings are banned in a place can still chill First Amendment activities."

Another local ACLU attorney who calls himself Solomon Furious Worlds said the bill was "an attempt to further criminalize young people of color."

Tara Schiraldi of the Defender Association of Philadelphia similarly suggested a mask ban was racially motivated, reported WHHY News.

"The criminalization of fashion popular with Black and brown youth puts Philadelphia in terrible company," said Schiraldi.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

FACT CHECK: Viral X Image Showing Nobel Prize Winners Wearing Face Masks Is From 2022

This year's Nobel Prize awards ceremony will take place on Dec. 10

Joe Biden's joke about not wearing face mask despite COVID-19 exposure says it all: 'I didn't have it on'



President Joe Biden joked on Wednesday about skirting CDC guidelines on wearing a mask after being exposed to COVID-19.

On Monday, the White House announced that first lady Jill Biden had tested positive for COVID-19. The president, however, tested negative.

That meant Biden could continue his daily work, but he would have to mask up when indoors and around other people in compliance with CDC guidance for people exposed to COVID-19, which states:

Wear a high-quality mask or respirator (e.g., N95) any time you are around others inside your home or indoors in public.

But Biden is clearly not interested in abiding by that guidance.

While walking into the State Dining Room to discuss a new contract between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the Pacific Maritime Association, Biden carried a black face mask in his hand before stepping up to the lectern and cracking a joke about not wearing it.

"Hello, everybody. Let me explain to the press: I've been tested again today. I'm clear across the board, but they keep telling me, because this has to be 10 days or something, I got to keep wearing it," Biden said.

"But don't tell them I didn’t have it on when I walked in," he quipped.

— (@)

Whether masks protect against COVID-19 and other respiratory illnesses is debated. While health authorities assert they do, a systematic review published in January asserted wearing a mask "probably makes little or no difference to the outcome" of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 compared to not wearing them.

Oxford epidemiologist Tom Jefferson, the first author of that study, said after its publication, "There is just no evidence that [masks] make any difference."

"Makes no difference — none of it," he explained, saying policymakers who enacted mask mandates during the pandemic were "convinced by nonrandomized studies, flawed observational studies."

Still, it is telling that not even Biden, at 81 years old, wants to wear his mask despite his own government's guidance, the White House saying he would follow that guidance, and his elevated risk of contracting and spreading the virus.

Not wearing his face mask at Wednesday's event was the second time in as many days that Biden skirted CDC guidance.

Biden removed his face mask at a Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House on Tuesday. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre later excused the clear violation of CDC guidance.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

CNN host shocks viewers when he confronts Dr. Fauci with study, expert analysis on mask efficacy



CNN host Michael Smerconish confronted Dr. Anthony Fauci on Saturday over a recent study that questioned the efficacy of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

What about the study?

In January, the Cochrane institute released a new systematic review studying the impacts of "physical interventions" to slow the spread of respiratory viruses. The study concluded that wearing masks "probably makes little or no difference to the outcome" on flu-like or COVID-like illness or laboratory-confirmed flu or COVID-19 compared to not wearing masks.

Oxford epidemiologist Tom Jefferson, the study's first author, said after the study was published, "There is just no evidence that [masks] make any difference."

"Makes no difference — none of it," he explained, speaking of N-95 masks. He said policymakers who enacted mask mandates were "convinced by nonrandomized studies, flawed observational studies."

What happened on CNN?

Smerconish confronted Fauci about that study and Jefferson's analysis, introducing it by quoting New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, who described the review as the "most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses."

Fauci, however, refused to budge.

"Yes, but there are other studies, Michael, that show at an individual level, for individual, when you're talking about the effect on the epidemic or the pandemic as a whole, the data are less strong," he responded.

"But when you talk about as an individual basis of someone protecting themselves or protecting themselves from spreading it to others, there's no doubt that there are many studies that show that there is an advantage," he continued. "When you [look at] the broad population level like the Cochrane study, the data are less firm with regard to the effect on the overall pandemic. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about an individual's effect on their own safety. That's a bit different than the broad population level."

Dr. Fauci responds to study that says masks didn't work www.youtube.com

There are several problems with Fauci's response.

First, he cited "other studies," but declined to name a single one. Second, he claimed those "studies" show mask efficacy at the "individual level." But to study the efficacy of masks, participants are placed in two groups — one with masks and another without masks — and the rate of infection between the groups is compared. There is no way to study these outcomes on an "individual level."

And don't forget: while Fauci now claims masks are effective on an "individual level," mask mandates were justified with the reverse logic. Politicians advised people to wear them, even those who did not want or need to wear them, in order to protect others.

Finally, Fauci spoke as though everyone's risk to COVID-19 is the same. Sure, everyone can contract it. But the pandemic proved that not everyone is equally likely to die from it. The people most likely to die from COVID-19 are elderly people and those who are metabolically unhealthy and have multiple comorbidities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in fact, said that just "over 5%" of COVID-19 deaths include people in which COVID-19 "was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate." But for people whose death certificate listed COVID-19 and other conditions, "on average, there were 4.0 additional conditions or causes per death," according to the CDC.

Still, viewers were simply amazed that a CNN host dared to challenge Fauci directly on the efficacy of masks.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In-N-Out Burger reportedly takes new bold stance about employees wearing face masks: 'Smiles and other facial features'



In-N-Out Burger, the popular California-based burger chain, is reportedly barring employees in certain states from wearing face masks without explicit medical direction.

Company leadership issued new employee policies last week barring workers in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Texas, and Utah from wearing face masks at work unless they have a doctor's note.

The policy is meant to prioritize In-N-Out Burger's "exceptional customer service."

"We are introducing new mask guidelines that emphasize the importance of customer service and the ability to show our Associates smiles and other facial features while considering the health and well-being of all individuals," the company told employees in a message. "We believe this policy will also help to promote clear and effective communication both with our Customers and among our Associates."

Employees in California and Oregon, meanwhile, can still wear masks but are limited to company-provided N-95 masks in the absence of a doctor's note, the company told employees.

Any employee who violates the policy will be subject to disciplinary measures up to termination. The policy change takes effect on Aug. 14.

In-N-Out Burger is known for taking bold stances.

The company, which prints Bible verses on its products, made headlines in 2021 for refusing to enforce San Francisco's COVID-19 vaccine policy that required businesses to verify the vaccine status of customers.

The company said at the time:

We refuse to become the vaccination police for any government. It is unreasonable, invasive, and unsafe to force our restaurant Associates to segregate Customers into those who may be served and those who may not, whether based on the documentation they carry, or any other reason.

We fiercely disagree with any government dictate that forces a private company to discriminate against customers who choose to patronize their business. This is clear governmental overreach and is intrusive, improper, and offensive.

TheBlaze reached out to In-N-Out Burger for comment, but the company did not return a message.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Boston Medical Center denies HIV-positive patient lifesaving care over face mask dispute

The Boston Medical Center is refusing to provide life-saving care to John Doe because he won't wear a face mask during clinic visits.

FatCamera/Getty Images

Horowitz: Trauma victim with health issues arrested for not wearing a mask at doctor’s office

Imagine a doctor refusing to treat a patient until he stops engaging in orgies that put him at risk of contracting monkeypox. Well, he would be following the science and data a lot more than those refusing service to those who don’t get the shots or wear masks, but unlike in the latter cases, that doctor would be out of a job and up to his neck in civil rights lawsuits. The time has come to even the score on discrimination and human rights.

Rayne Barton of Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, doesn’t have the luxury of avoiding the doctor. With diabetes, chronic heart problems, kidney disease, and spinal stenosis, Barton needs to constantly see doctors and get prescriptions refilled. Yet, as the Epoch Times reports, she has been banned from all Penn Medicine facilities since Feb. 17, 2022, because of mask disputes. On July 22, Hypertension and Kidney Specialists, an independent doctor’s office in Lancaster, called the police on her after she was told to leave the premises during a mask dispute. She was forced to ride in the back of a police car with her hands behind her back, despite her painful back condition.

How is this allowed to happen in America? How can a policy as inhumane, immoral, and illogical as covering one’s breathing holes be allowed to stand after being repudiated for two and a half years? How is free breathing not a basic human right, especially for those with disabilities, or at least covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and anti-discrimination law? Companies often spend millions of dollars complying with ADA requirements for customers, yet here they can discriminate against trauma victims when it costs them nothing and when they are free to wear masks themselves if they believe they work, a proposition refuted by the very reality of the virus still spreading unrestrained in all of the most masked places in the world.

Most Americans are no longer affected by the masks because the powers at be smartly lifted the mandates for the majority of people headed into the election. But for people affected the most – those with disabilities needing to see the doctor often – it is still a devastating human rights violation. And unless we extirpate this inhumane treatment from our society, it will be reinstated on all of us intermittently.

The Epoch Times reports that Barton is incapable of placing a mask over her face because she is a victim of childhood trauma. She was attacked by a group of boys as a kid and had dirt stuffed down her mouth, which is why she can’t cover her mouth to this day without it triggering a panic attack. Even for medical interventions that have scientific rationale (and don’t have the option of others utilizing it, as does mask-wearing), we always make exceptions for those with disabilities. What has become of us as human beings that we are still engaging in this sort of behavior long after the “my mask protects you but not me” absurdity has been thoroughly debunked?

The time has come to codify medical discrimination into civil rights and ensure that nobody can ever be denied treatment on account of not getting a shot or wearing a mask. There is never a scientific or moral rationale for such a requirement, and it is clear that it is all promoted through the misinformation propagated by the federal government. Masking only became a thing because of governmen intervention; it therefore must be uprooted with a display of state government power.

The slate is not clean when it comes to the private sector and discrimination law, especially in something like medical treatment, which is often (especially in a hospital) designated as a public accommodation. They cannot discriminate against people even when their behaviors are proven to cause their ailments. Can hospitals turn away the recurring patients who are on their third drug overdose in as many months? Can they refuse to treat the gunshot victim who himself had been involved in multiple gang shootings? Can they deny treatment for monkeypox if the patient attended a super-spreader orgy that is almost exclusively responsible for the spread of the virus? Until they can, there is no moral or scientific rational for allowing doctors to deny organ transplants to people without shots or care for people who don’t cover their human breathing holes.

Emerging from the past two years of COVID fascism without instituting major legal and political protections against abuse of bodily autonomy would be like not addressing box cutters on planes after 9/11. Yet few Republicans care to act. They have a pre-March 2020 mindset about what we face in government, the medical cartel, and the globalist entities like the World Economic Forum and the WHO, all manipulated by China in the background. Policymakers are slyly choosing to subject only medical facilities and the military to continued regulations so as not to enrage the majority of the electorate, but make no mistake, those people are worth fighting for. Also, we will all continue to suffer from assaults on freedom if we don’t push for new civil rights concerning medical freedom. Such a plan would include:

  • Updating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so that employers, retailers, hospitals, schools, and others would not be able to discriminate against individuals based on refusal to wear a mask or get a shot, just like they can’t discriminate based on sex, race, or religion. We the Patriots USA has delivered a petition to do just that to all the members of Congress. Red states with supermajorities could easily do this on the state level next session.
  • Subject anyone who forces someone to wear a mask or get a shot to liability for damage from masks or shots.
  • Threaten the nonprofit status of any hospital that engages in such discrimination.
  • Pass a patient bill of rights.
  • Pass a digital health privacy bill of rights.

Remember, none of these policies organically emerged from the free market. They were all ultimately mandated or manipulated by the federal government. States must fight power with power. If we had a true free market, even a minority of doctors who don’t believe in masks would be able to advertise and place themselves on a list for people like Barton to use. But they would be targeted for loss of board certification or even state medical licenses.

It is shocking that even as the Biden administration declares a second public health emergency on top of COVID, Republicans have not even made reversal of these policies a centerpiece of their campaign platforms. Let us not forget the admonition of founder John Dickinson: “All artful rulers, who strive to extend their own power beyond its just limits, endeavor to give to their attempts, as much semblance of legality as possible. Those who succeed them may venture to go a little farther; for each new encroachment will be strengthened by a former.”

COVID fascism must be destroyed – root and branch – if we are to have a shot at precluding the next wave of encroachments on our bodies.

Why That Big Randomized Trial On Face Coverings Didn’t Find What Corporate News Claimed It Did

Science recently published the largest cluster-randomized trial to date on face coverings, a massive study that the science community had been calling for since the start of the pandemic.