Mandates, masks, and mayhem: Never again!



Five years ago this month, the government effectively declared martial law. In doing so, it made what may be the worst decision of our lifetime — crushing civil liberties, wrecking the economy, and causing untold deaths through mismanagement of the virus and widespread use of a dangerous vaccine.

We continue to suffer the economic and health consequences of those decisions. Meanwhile, at both the federal level and in many states, lawmakers have failed to address the core liberty issue: preventing those powers from ever being used again.

It took just three years after the Civil War to ratify the 14th Amendment. Yet five years after COVID-era abuses, no comparable protections have passed at the federal level.

After the civil rights abuses that helped spark the Civil War, the country passed sweeping constitutional amendments to protect basic freedoms. Yet Congress has taken no such action after the COVID catastrophe. The same goes for many red states, which have done little over the past five years.

Still, it’s never too late to do the right thing. The following checklist outlines what Congress and state legislatures — especially those with Republican majorities — must do to fix it.

End biomedical tyranny

The COVID-19 era revealed a dangerous truth: It is neither scientifically sound, morally justified, nor constitutionally acceptable to force one person to undergo a medical intervention for the sake of another. Congress and state legislatures must act immediately to codify the following protections:

  • No mandates: No federal or state agency should ever require individuals to use a therapeutic, vaccine, prophylactic, or medical device.
  • No limitless emergencies: A president or governor may not declare a public health emergency lasting more than 30 days unless both legislative chambers approve an extension by a supermajority.
  • No lockdowns: Except for narrowly targeted, short-term quarantines of individuals exposed to deadly, quarantinable diseases like Ebola, the federal government must not restrict individual or property rights under the guise of pandemic control.
  • No masks: Outside surgical or clinical settings, no federal or state government should compel individuals to cover their faces as a condition of participating in public life.

These protections must be enacted at the federal level. While several Republican-led states have passed laws addressing parts of the issue, few have permanently banned public and private vaccine or mask mandates in all settings.

Additionally, county health directors should not have the authority to declare emergencies with criminal or civil penalties unless the county’s legislative body explicitly approves it. Even during such declarations, constitutional rights — such as the right to worship — must remain fully protected.

No experimentation without representation

Ban all mRNA shots: Except for terminally ill cancer patients, mRNA technology should not be used. Data now shows that mRNA does not stay localized, contains DNA contamination, and causes widespread inflammation. After five years of studies and real-world outcomes, mRNA technology has surpassed the threshold that would normally prompt the FDA to pull a product from the market. States should either ban its use or at minimum prohibit state agencies from promoting it.

Repeal the 2004 PREP Act: The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act shields all public health “countermeasures” from liability, including vaccines, therapeutics, and testing tools used during emergencies. Even cases involving willful misconduct can only be brought by the federal government. Congress must repeal this law and restore accountability.

Repeal the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act: This law exempts all vaccines on the childhood immunization schedule from liability. Congress should repeal it to restore legal recourse for vaccine injuries.

End marketing of emergency-use products: Any product approved only for emergency use should not receive government-backed promotion or special status. These products should be treated solely as private medical decisions between doctors and patients.

Restore informed consent

The FDA and state governments must not mandate or promote new vaccines or biologic products unless they undergo proper safety evaluation. No product should receive approval without long-term, placebo-controlled trials that test for:

  • Allergenicity — potential to cause allergic reactions
  • Carcinogenicity — potential to cause cancer
  • Fertility impact — effects on reproductive health
  • Immunogenicity — ability to generate an immune response
  • Genotoxicity — potential to damage genes or cause mutations

Approval should require evidence of reduced all-cause mortality over time. No vaccine should gain approval if trial data shows more deaths in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group.

Regulators must not approve vaccines for one age group while ignoring safety concerns in another, unless they can clearly demonstrate that risks do not apply to the targeted population. For example, after acknowledging that RSV shots caused Guillain-Barré syndrome and walking back its recommendation for people over 60, the FDA continued to promote the shots for those over 75.

Additional protections should include:

  • Banning self-spreading viruses and biologics.
  • Criminalizing the release of any pathogen, including self-spreading vaccines, and allow individuals to sue those responsible.
  • Prohibiting the placement of vaccine-related materials in the food supply.

Congress should also establish a commission to audit the childhood immunization schedule and review new vaccines in the development pipeline. This includes a full review of their necessity, safety data, and efficacy. Enlightened consent must serve as the foundation for informed consent.

The right to treat

Congress must prohibit the FDA from blocking doctors from prescribing fully approved drugs for off-label use.

All pandemic or emergency public health funding for hospitals must remain treatment-neutral. Funding should not favor one therapy over another. Clinicians — not federal agencies or pharmaceutical companies — should guide treatment decisions based on best practices, not profit motives.

Given ivermectin’s broad-spectrum antiviral properties and well-documented safety profile, it should be made available over the counter. Arkansas has taken the lead in adopting this approach.

Protect doctor-patient autonomy

Doctors must not face penalties — such as loss of their licenses or board certifications — for expressing dissenting views on vaccines or mask mandates. State medical boards must overhaul their complaint processes to focus only on cases with actual patient harm.

Boards should accept complaints only from:

  • Patients alleging direct injury
  • Immediate family of deceased patients
  • Medical professionals with firsthand knowledge of patient harm

All complaints unrelated to patient injury should be dismissed without review.

The Trump administration should direct the Department of Justice to drop all prosecutions against physicians charged with so-called “COVID crimes.” These include cases like that of Utah plastic surgeon Dr. Kirk Moore, who faces federal charges for allegedly providing vaccine exemptions and other patient-centered actions taken during the pandemic.

Adopt a new ‘Patient’s Bill of Rights’

Some states have taken steps in the right direction, but stronger civil and criminal penalties must be in place to protect patient rights across the country. Every hospital and senior care facility should be legally required to:

  • Prohibit denial of treatment, including organ transplants, based on vaccination status.
  • Allow at least one surrogate or visitor to be present for patients in hospitals or nursing homes.
  • Permit patients to use FDA-approved drugs off-label, prescribed by a licensed physician, at their own expense and with informed consent.
  • Guarantee the right to refuse any hospital-prescribed treatment and the right to leave the facility if the patient is mentally competent — effectively banning medical kidnapping.
  • Provide patients or their families a legal cause of action to file civil suits against facilities that violate these rights. District attorneys should also have the authority to pursue criminal charges when appropriate.
  • Revoke state tax-exempt status for hospitals found in violation of these provisions.

It took just three years after the Civil War to ratify the 14th Amendment. Congress codified its principles into law within a year of Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. Yet five years after COVID-era abuses, no comparable protections have passed at the federal level, and only a few states have enacted partial reforms. That needs to change. The time to act is now.

Five Years Of Lockdown Trauma Reinforces Skepticism Of ‘The Scientific Consensus’

The scientific community, when it takes up the next cause, should recognize that it is no small thing to infringe on personal autonomy.

Let’s build statues for the masked enforcers of COVID tyranny



Think about all the statues the woke mob tore down in recent years with the same fury they now reserve for firebombing Teslas. On the fifth anniversary of COVID-19’s medical, legal, and ethical failures, I have a few ideas for heroes worthy of new monuments.

Idaho alone deserves at least two. In September 2020, police arrested Gabe Rench for peacefully singing hymns at a public protest against the city of Moscow’s strict mask mandate. A court later ruled in his favor. Then, in April 2020, officers handcuffed Sara Brady in front of her children for letting them play outside at a park in defiance of a stay-at-home order. She, too, was ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing.

We should build statues and monuments to remind future generations of how science and dignity were cast aside for cultish hysteria and blind fear.

It took until 2023 for justice to prevail in both cases, delayed by a swarm of overzealous Karens and Keystone cops who failed to learn from history’s authoritarian follies. Instead, they seemed eager to replicate them.

They deserve statues too — depicted in their masks, rigidly marching six feet apart, blindly enforcing fraudulent “safety” measures. They can stand near Rench and Brady, a permanent reminder of the goose-stepping hysteria that defined the era.

The statues should defy logic, evoking disbelief and confusion. Children will gaze at them, instinctively pitying the absurdity and disgrace of the era they represent.

“How did they let it come to this?” they will ask. And wiser adults of a future age will answer, “Because they were morons, child. Utter morons.”

Todd Erzen, my book editor, envisions a mural in downtown Des Moines capturing his experience in April 2021. That day, he took his young daughter to a small restaurant to pick up a pizza. Inside, diners sat freely eating and chatting without masks. But when Erzen walked in for two minutes to grab his order, the Stasi guard working the cash register insisted that he wear a mask.

When Erzen pointed out the absurdity — customers raw-dogging the air all around him for an entire meal were somehow "safe," yet his brief presence required a hazmat-level response — the restaurant workers refused to give him the pizza. Then they called the cops.

Erzen hopes the mural will provoke a question from future generations: If someone truly feared infection, why would they prolong an argument with a supposed biohazard instead of simply handing him his pizza and ending the interaction as quickly as possible?

The mural would be called “Trust the experts!”

Not so fast, proclaims the New York Times. This week, the paper ran an op-ed with a breathtaking lack of self-awareness, headlined “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives.” What in the name of Wuhan is that nonsense? Misled by whom? Where was that level of skepticism when Joe Biden declared COVID-19 a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”? Where was it when Sweden stayed open and defied predictions of mass death and disaster? Or when ivermectin — a Nobel Prize-winning treatment — was suddenly banned overnight, nearly costing my friend Bill Salier his life?

Yes, we should build statues and monuments to remind future generations of how science and dignity were cast aside for cultish hysteria and blind fear. Let them see a grand sculpture of Salier, measuring out “horse medicine” in a desperate bid to save himself, while a smug pharmacist and the likes of Terry Bradshaw mocked him.

Our monuments to the scamdemic should be as absurd as the reality they reflect — a cause for both mockery and lamentation. They should remind us of a similarly stiff-necked people who once worshipped a golden calf instead of the one true God and thus help us vow to do a much better job teaching future generations to smash their idols instead of allowing them to be brought to us by Pfizer.

The untold story of LA’s underground COVID-era speakeasies



“It’s closed. Let’s get out of here.”

My Israeli friend had picked me up from Woodland Hills and parked in the dimly lit back lot of a seedy hookah lounge in Canoga Park, a Los Angeles neighborhood where one doesn’t want to be caught on the wrong street at the wrong time.

These moments of frustration shattered trust in government and reignited a core American belief: Those in power should not live by a different set of rules than the people they govern.

It was June 2020. “Two weeks to flatten the curve” had overstayed its welcome by three months, and my friend was one of many Angelenos who refused to accept that empty streets, boarded-up businesses, and “parking lot hangouts” were the “new normal.” We were both in need of a hit of normalcy, and he said he knew a place.

“Just wait,” he assured me.

I was skeptical. Restaurants didn’t have the luxury of attempting to accommodate California’s stringent social distancing standards like Target, Walmart, and other big-name “essential” businesses. Opening their doors was illegal — and had been for months.

After we knocked on the side door, an enormous Lebanese bouncer poked his furrowed brow over the threshold.

“Welcome,” he said quickly, ushering us in.

Lockdown speakeasies

Lebanese, Israelis, and Jordanians packed the place front to back as menthol- and mango-scented smoke curled toward the dimly lit ceiling. Who knew a shared frustration over California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s lockdowns could forge such peaceful relations?

“My gosh,” I thought. “This is a legit speakeasy” — and it wasn’t the only one.

Newsom’s draconian lockdown orders forged a slew of COVID-era speakeasies, welcoming customers through word of mouth, usually via Signal groups created by other Angelenos who craved a return to routine.

This evening of blissful familiarity — albeit with a Middle Eastern twist — was interrupted by a visit from the police. Their visit lasted all of 30 seconds. “Hey, guys. Someone reported you, so we had to show up. You all have a wonderful evening.”

The degree to which law enforcement enforced Newsom’s COVID restrictions varied from county to county, even within the same departments. Thankfully, the police in Canoga Park refused to force small-business owners to choose between putting food on their families’ tables and obeying Newsom’s dictates.

The price of defiance

Other neighborhoods weren’t so lucky. Novo, an Italian restaurant just 10 minutes north in Westlake Village, had to choose between remaining closed under Newsom’s indefinite restrictions or shutting down permanently due to lack of revenue. The owners risked defying the former to avoid the latter. Every day they remained open, Los Angeles County slapped them with a hefty fine — but the community rallied around them. Every night, the restaurant was packed with locals risking fines themselves to keep the business afloat — refusing to watch another small business in their community go under.

Five miles up the road from the Italian restaurant, a local pastor, Rob McCoy, was held in contempt and fined for illegally holding a church service with fewer congregants than people frequenting the Target across the freeway.

Within this context, I got my first gig as a writer — five years ago this very week — interviewing small businesses in the service industry for a local newspaper in the months following their government’s broken promise that they needed to close their doors for only “two weeks to flatten the curve.”

Some, like the owners of a small deli in Dos Vientos, tried to toe the line by serving burritos to customers in their parking lot. Others, like a cigar lounge in Thousand Oaks, became a hub for police officers who refused to enforce Newsom’s restrictions.

Regardless of their posturing during lockdown, one-third of all restaurants in Los Angeles County met the same fate: permanently closing their doors.

A double standard

Business owners — from both sides of the political aisle — already felt cheated by their government. But government officials' partisan double standard for themselves rubbed salt in the wound.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti joined thousands of protesters against the death of George Floyd, marching through the streets of downtown during the height of lockdown — while his administration issued crippling fines for small businesses serving their clientele.

The protests turned violent during the infamous “Summer of Love.” National Guard troops patrolled the streets at night while the rest of Los Angeles County was under strict curfew. A family-owned Indian food store in Thousand Oaks boarded up the business with plywood ahead of an imminent Black Lives Matter protest, which had been the catalyst for mass looting and millions of dollars in damages in neighboring Los Angeles suburbs. A gym in Agoura Hills reopened after BLM-affiliated rioters stormed and looted stores across Santa Monica en masse.

“Does the virus skip over the rioters?” the gym owner asked, tongue in cheek.

Despite the chaos erupting out of California’s major city centers, the most scathing image to emerge during lockdown was Gavin Newsom and California’s Democratic elite dining — maskless — at the French Laundry, one of America’s most acclaimed restaurants.

“Let them eat cake” didn’t work for the French, and it certainly didn’t work for California’s small-business owners, even longtime Democratic loyalists.

Turning point in American politics

“Two weeks to flatten the curve” became arguably the most transformative cultural moment in modern American history. Partisan lines blurred — even in deep-blue Los Angeles County — uniting people around the definitively American sentiment: What gives you the right to tell me what to do?

These moments of frustration weren’t just passing irritations. They fundamentally shattered trust in government and reignited a core American belief: Those in power should not live by a different set of rules than the people they govern.

And now, five years later, Newsom wants the country to forget he was the man behind the lockdowns. Embarking on a desperate campaign to depict himself as a moderate — likely with eyes on the White House — Newsom has never once fessed up to his failed leadership during the pandemic.

But small-business owners haven’t forgotten. The families who lost everything haven’t forgotten. And voters shouldn’t either.

If history tells us anything, it’s that those who trample on freedom once will do it again — especially if they think no one is paying attention.

No Amount Of Crocodile Tears Can Erase Corporate Media’s Complicity In Covid Scandal

Corporate media aren’t sorry that they played a key role in covering up Covid corruption. They are sorry that they were caught in a web of lies that further threaten Americans’ trust in media.

COVID 2.0: Why Newsom’s latest ‘state of emergency’ is all too familiar



California Governor Gavin Newsom has declared a state of emergency over the spread of bird flu, which currently is considered a low risk to Americans — though Liz Wheeler of “The Liz Wheeler Show” can’t help but feel as though this is all eerily similar to what happened four years ago.

“Guys, it’s COVID 2.0,” Wheeler comments, adding, “Just in time for Christmas. Christmas, which by the way, under the last public health emergency, Gavin Newsom declared we weren’t allowed to celebrate with our families. You were only allowed to be outside, remember?”

“No more than two households and no more than two hours, and you have to wear masks, and no singing, and no shouting, and no hugging. Real rules from Gavin Newsom, and he’s declaring the bird flu is the next COVID,” she continues.

Wheeler remembers this all too well, as she lived in California during COVID.


“The day that Gavin Newsom declared a public health emergency and a lockdown in California is a day that is burned into my memory. I will never forget turning to my husband and saying, ‘Are we allowed to leave the house? Is that what he’s telling us, that we’re not allowed to leave or if I drive down the road, is a cop going to pull me over, and what, arrest me?” She recalls.

“Gavin Newsom locked down people’s businesses, he closed restaurants, he closed beaches in California and parks,” she says, noting that once she defied the lockdown rules and went to a park.

“A cop on an ATV rides up to me, fully masked, and was like, ‘Ma’am, you have to leave the park. The park is closed.’ And I was like, ‘Oh, why?’ And he’s like, ‘Well, because of social distancing.’ I was like, ‘Well, the only person near to me in this park is you. Nobody else is even near me. So if there’s a public health risk being posted it’s you and initiating contact with me,’” she explains.

“Gavin Newsom is doing the same thing. He declared a public health emergency over the bird flu. But why do you do that?” She asks, before answering herself. “To give yourself emergency powers to shut down schools and churches and enforce social distancing and vaccine mandates.”

“That’s what he’ll do again if people don’t resist,” she adds.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Fauci Testimony Forces The Washington Post To Debunk Its Own Fake News

Anthony Fauci's testimony shows The Washington Post’s reporting on social distancing during Covid was fake news based on fake science.

Fauci Admits There Was No Scientific Evidence For Six-Foot Social Distancing Rule

Fauci testified in front of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic conceding there was no data backing the six-foot rule.

'Because I said so': 5 takeaways from the Fauci hearing



Former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci was grilled by the Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic for 14 hours in January. In the lengthy interview, Fauci admitted that he was unaware of any scientific studies demonstrating that masking for children worked or that the 6-foot social distancing guidelines — which effectively shut down schools, churches, and businesses — were an effective way of curbing the spread of the coronavirus. Fauci also acknowledged that the lab leak theory was not a conspiracy theory as he previously suggested.

Fauci, who plays a starring role in BlazeTV's "The Coverup," appeared before the committee Monday to speak to these admissions as well as to his role in overseeing the funding of deadly gain-of-function experiments.

''Because I said so.' That's never been good enough for Americans and it never will be.'

Committee Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) told Fauci at the outset, "Whether intentional or not, you became so powerful that any disagreements the public had with you were forbidden and censored on social and most legacy media time and time again. That is why so many Americans became so angry — because this was fundamentally un-American."

"'Because I said so.' That's never been good enough for Americans and it never will be," added Wenstrup. "Americans do not want to be indoctrinated. They want to be educated."

The hearing had the potential to be educational; however, Democratic committee members opted for the latter, celebrating Fauci, defending his preferred narratives, and lobbing attacks on their political opponents.

Republican lawmakers, alternatively, attempted to hold Fauci's feet to a low-heat fire, largely failing to get results.

What follows are five key takeaways from the Fauci hearing.

1. Not so effective after all

When asked straight out by Wenstrup whether the vaccine "stopped transmission of the virus," Fauci answered, "That is a complicated issue because in the beginning, the first iteration of the vaccines did have an effect — not 100%, not a high effect — they did prevent infection and subsequently, obviously transmission."

'I feel extreme confidence in the safety and the efficacy of this vaccine.'

"However, it's important to point out something that we did not know early on that became evident as the months went by is that the durability of protection against infection and hence transmission was relatively limited whereas the duration of protection against severe disease, hospitalization, and death was more prolonged," said Fauci. "In the beginning it was felt that in fact it did prevent infection and thus transmission."

After discovering Fauci would not disavow any of the draconian COVID measures he championed during the pandemic, Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) also asked Fauci about his support for vaccine mandates and the efficacy of vaccines.

Fauci reiterated, "It clearly prevented infection in a certain percentage of people, but the durability of its ability to prevent infection was not long."

Fauci was one of the most visible and consistent exponents of the "safe and effective" mantra, having claimed in December 2020, "I feel extreme confidence in the safety and the efficacy of this vaccine and I want to encourage everyone who has the opportunity to get vaccinated so that we can have a veil of protection over this country, that would end this pandemic."

— (@)  
 

2. Fauci: The blameless victim

Whereas Republican members blasted the former NIAID director for funding dangerous experiments of the kind that may have kicked off the pandemic as well as his years-long promotion of falsehoods, Democrats painted Fauci as a blameless victim and seized on the opportunity, as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) did, to attack former President Donald Trump and other Republicans.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) told Fauci, "You're human, just like the rest of us," and stressed that he "deserve[s] better."

"I've seen your commitment not just to science, but to, again, to the greater good," said Dingell.

'You have been a hero to many for 54 years.'

After singing Fauci's praises, Dingell gave Fauci an opportunity to complain about facing criticism and perceived threats.

Democratic Reps. Dingell, Robert Garcia (Calif.), Jill Tokuda (Hawaii), Katherine Castor (Fla.), Raul Ruiz (Calif.), and Kweisi Mfume (Md.) similarly engaged in hagiography.

"We owe you an apology for the way we have dragged you through the mud," said Mfume.

"You have been a hero to many for 54 years," continued Mfume. "You are a world-renowned scientist and an American patriot."

Mfume made no mention of Americans who have suffered vaccine injuries but instead spoke in the abstract of "thousands of American lives [that] could have been spared" if they had not followed so-called conspiracy theories during the pandemic.

After paying his respects to Fauci, Rep. Garcia asked whether the "American public should listen to America's brightest and best doctors and scientists, or instead listen to podcasters, conspiracy theorists, and unhinged Facebook memes."

"Listening to the people just described is going to do nothing but harm people because they will deprive themselves of life-saving interventions," said Fauci, who was among the so-called experts who cautioned against using ivermectin to fight COVID-19.

Fauci proceeded to accuse the unvaccinated of getting an estimated 200,000-300,000 killed in the U.S. alone.

— (@)  
 

3. Fauci hangs 'inner circle' out to dry

Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) noted that there is "a troubling pattern of behavior" in Fauci's "inner circle," naming Fauci's David M. Morens, senior scientific adviser to the head of the NIAID, and Fauci's former chief of staff as two offenders.

Comer pressed Fauci on whether Morens violated NIH policy by using a personal email for official purposes. Fauci appeared more than willing to throw his former adviser and frequent correspondent under the bus, indicating Morens' personal email use to avoid transparency was indeed in violation of agency policy.

"Does it violate NIAID policy to delete records to intentionally avoid FOIA?"

"Yes," said Fauci.

'That was wrong and inappropriate and violated policy.'

"On April 28, 2020, Dr. Morens edited an EcoHealth press release regarding the grant termination. Does that violate policy?" asked Comer.

"That was inappropriate for him to be doing that for a grantee as a conflict of interest, among other things," said Fauci.

"On March 29, 2021, Dr. Morens edited a letter that Dr. Daszak was sending to NIH. Does that violate policy?" asked Comer.

"Yes, it does," answered Fauci.

"On Oct. 25, 2021, Dr. Brady provided Dr. Daszak with advice regarding how to mislead NIH on EcoHealth's late progress report. Does that violate policy?" asked Comer.

"That was wrong and inappropriate and violated policy," said Fauci.

"On Dec. 7, 2021, Dr. Morens wrote to the chair of EcoHealth board of directors to quote, 'Put in a word,' for Dr. Daszak. Does that violate policy?" asked Comer.

"Should not have been done, and that was wrong," said Fauci. "Well, I'm not sure of a specific policy, but I imagine that does violate policy. Should not have been doing that."

— (@)  
 

4. Fauci denies funding gain-of-function research

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) asked Fauci whether the National Institutes of Health funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

'I would not characterize it as dangerous gain-of-function research.'

"I would not characterize it the way you did," said Fauci, contradicting the NIH's account. "The National Institutes of Health, through a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, funded research on the surveillance of and the possibility of emerging infections. I would not characterize it as dangerous gain-of-function research."

Elsewhere in his testimony Monday, Fauci said that "according to the regulatory and operative definition of [Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens], the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

Lesko quoted NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak as acknowledging the "failure of the Wuhan Institute of Virology to provide us with the data that we requested and the lab notebooks that we requested, [which] certainly impeded our ability to understand what was really going on with the experiments that we have been discussing."

Granted the lack of transparency at the infamous lab, Lesko asked Fauci how he can be certain that the National Institutes of Health did not fund gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in China granted its subcontractor EcoHealth Alliance's reporting failures.

Fauci once again stressed that the NIH did not fund the deadly research in question, which EcoHealth Alliance's subcontractor specialized in.

5. Downplayed likelihood of lab leak

Fauci claimed Monday that the idea he covered up a lab leak was "preposterous."

Fauci indicated in his opening statement that he was informed on Jan. 31, 2020, "through phone calls with Jeremy Farrar, then director of the Wellcome Trust in the U.K., and then with Christian Anderson, a highly regarded scientist at Scripps Research Institute, that they and Eddie Holmes, a world class evolutionary biologist from Australia, were concerned that the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 suggested that the virus could have been manipulated in a lab."

Fauci then noted he partook in a conference call the next day "with about a dozen international virologists to discuss this possibility versus a spillover from an animal reservoir."

Despite indications to the contrary, Fauci claimed, "The accusation being circulated that I influenced these scientists to change their minds by bribing them with millions of dollars in grant money is absolutely false and simply preposterous. I had no input into the content of the published paper," referencing the March 2020 study published in the journal Nature, "The Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2."

"The second issue is a false accusation that I tried to cover up the possibility that the virus originated from a lab. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite," continued Fauci. "I have repeatedly stated that I have a completely open mind to either possibility and that if definitive evidence becomes available to validate or refute either theory, I will readily accept it."

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) later asked Fauci whether he downplayed the lab leak theory on account of having funded experimental viruses at the Wuhan lab — funding Fauci copped to but Ranking Member Raul Ruiz nevertheless cast doubt on in his closing remarks.

Fauci, prickled by the suggestion that he tried to downplay the possibility he had fingerprints on research that got millions of Americans killed, answered in the negative.

— (@)  
 

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

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!