COVID-19
US House COVID report vindicates lab leak theory but tries to defend ‘success’ of the jabs
From LifeSiteNews
“the federal government supported dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without adequate transparency or oversight, and that former White House COVID adviser and National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci “played semantics with the definition of gain-of-function research” to deny it
The U.S. House Oversight & Accountability Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has released its long-awaited After Action Review on COVID-19 and the government response, which affirms the verdict that COVID most likely originated in a lab through gain-of-function research and broadly condemns the lockdowns of personal freedom and economic activity but attempts to walk a far finer and sometimes contradictory line on the COVID vaccines.
Worked on for almost two years, the 520-page report is billed as the “single most thorough review of the pandemic conducted to date,” according to a press release from the committee.
“This work will help the United States, and the world, predict the next pandemic, prepare for the next pandemic, protect ourselves from the next pandemic, and hopefully prevent the next pandemic. Members of the 119th Congress should continue and build off this work, there is more information to find and honest actions to be taken,” said Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio, the chairman of the subcommittee. “The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a distrust in leadership. Trust is earned. Accountability, transparency, honesty, and integrity will regain this trust. A future pandemic requires a whole of America response managed by those without personal benefit or bias. We can always do better, and for the sake of future generations of Americans, we must. It can be done.”
The report concludes that COVID most likely “emerged as the result of a laboratory or research related accident,” that the federal government supported dangerous gain-of-function research (that entails intentionally strengthening viruses to better study their potential effects) in Wuhan, China without adequate transparency or oversight, and that former White House COVID adviser and National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci “played semantics with the definition of gain-of-function research” to deny it, as well as prompting creation of the controversial “Proximal Origins” paper to attempt to discredit the lab-leak theory.
It further found that officials within NIAID actively attempted to flout Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for documents on the matter, such as by intentionally misspelling various names and terms so they would be harder to find in word searches.
The report goes on to conclude that the enormous sums of money the government doled out in the name of COVID relief was rife with waste and abuse, including more than $191 billion in unemployment fraud, $64 billion worth of fraud in the Paycheck Protection Program, and the loss of $200 billion due to the Small Business Administration failing to implement proper oversight and controls.
Meanwhile, the infamous “social distancing” guidance for people to stand at least six feet apart was based on “no scientific trials or studies,” but despite admitting as much, Fauci declined to push back because, in his words, it was “not appropriate to be publicly challenging a sister organization.” Face masks were similarly unsupported by the science and ultimately proven to be ineffective at limiting COVID’s spread, and widespread lockdowns of businesses and public gatherings caused significant harm to the economy, to physical and mental health, and to children’s education and social development far outweighing whatever good they may have done.
On the subject of the controversial COVID vaccines, however, the report is far more deferential. It acknowledges that the shots “had adverse events that must be thoroughly investigated,” and discusses various shortcomings in the government’s reporting systems for adverse vaccine events but still concludes that, overall, the vaccines were “largely safe and effective,” and credits them with saving “millions” of lives.
Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration initiative to develop vaccines for COVID in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take, “was a tremendous success,” the subcommittee says, and the resulting vaccines “undoubtedly saved millions of lives by diminishing likelihood of severe disease and death.” It even faults President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, who were running against Donald Trump for the White House at the time, for “question(ing) the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations” before they were released.
At the same time, the report faults the following Biden administration for mandating the shots and rushing approval of vaccine booster doses, downplaying natural immunity, failing to properly adjudicate vaccine injuries, and exaggerating the vaccines’ value.
“COVID-19 vaccines were tremendously important in reducing the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and were extremely effective in doing so,” the report claims. “However, the Biden Administration oversold the power of these vaccines. On more than one occasion, President Biden himself overstated the vaccine’s ability to prevent infection and transmission. These false statements likely contributed to Americans’ confusion about COVID-19 vaccines and reduced overall vaccine confidence.”
The subcommittee report largely reiterates and aligns with a wealth of previous findings on the failures of lockdowns and forced masking, as well as the origins of COVID-19. On the subject of the vaccines, however, it neglects a large body of evidence of far more widespread harm.
The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 38,068 deaths, 218,646 hospitalizations, 22,002 heart attacks, and 28,706 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of October 25, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.
An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID vaccines, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” In April, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions, and a study out of Japan found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines and offered several theories for a causal link.
In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the vaccines’ manufacturers is slated to release a report on the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccines, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of misrepresentation for calling the shots “safe and effective.” The findings of both efforts are highly anticipated.
All eyes are currently on returning President Trump, and whose health team, which will be helmed by prominent vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as his nominee for Secretary of Health & Human Services, has given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the shots for which he has long taken credit, and has nominated both critics and defenders of establishment COVID measures for a number of administration roles.
From LifeSiteNews
With lockdowns, mass vaccination campaigns, and social distancing still on the table from the last around, it appears that AI and Machine Learning will play a much bigger role in the next.
DARPA is getting into the business of simulating disease outbreaks, including modeling interventions such as mass vaccination campaigns, lockdowns, and communication strategies.
At the end of May, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) put out a Request for Information (RFI) seeking information regarding “state-of-the-art capabilities in the simulation of disease outbreaks.”
The Pentagon’s research and development funding arm wants to hear from academic, industry, commercial, and startup communities on how to develop “advanced capabilities that drive technical innovation and identify critical gaps in bio-surveillance, diagnostics, and medical countermeasures” in order to “improve preparedness for future public health emergencies.”
Dr. @P_McCulloughMD: "This Is a Military Operation"
"The military said in 2012, 'We will end pandemics in 60 days using messenger RNA.' That's long before Moderna and Pfizer were even in the game. … They are profiting from this, but they didn't drive it." pic.twitter.com/71jAV5wfG0
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) March 12, 2023
As if masks, social distancing, lockdowns, and vaccination mandates under the unscientific guise of slowing the spread and preventing the transmission of COVID weren’t harmful enough, the U.S. military wants to model the effects of these exact same countermeasures for future outbreaks.
The RFI also asks participants “Fatality Rate & Immune Status: How are fatality rates and varying levels of population immunity (natural or vaccine-induced) incorporated into your simulations?“
Does “natural or vaccine-induced” relate to “population immunity” or “fatality rates” or both?
Moving on, the RFI gets into modeling lockdowns, social distancing, and mass vaccination campaigns, along with communication strategies:
Intervention Strategies: Detail the range of intervention strategies that can be modeled, including (but not limited to) vaccination campaigns, social distancing measures, quarantine protocols, treatments, and public health communication strategies. Specifically, describe the ability to model early intervention and its impact on outbreak trajectory.
The fact that DARPA wants to model these so-called intervention strategies just after the entire world experienced them suggests that these exact same measures will most likely be used again in the future:
“We are committed to developing advanced modeling capabilities to optimize response strategies and inform the next generation of (bio)technology innovations to protect the population from biological threats. We are particularly focused on understanding the complex interplay of factors that drive outbreak spread and evaluating the effectiveness of potential interventions.” — DARPA, Advanced Disease Outbreak Simulation Capabilities RFI, May 2025.
“Identification of optimal timelines and capabilities to detect, identify, attribute, and respond to disease outbreaks, including but not limited to biosensor density deployment achieving optimal detection timelines, are of interest.” — DARPA, Advanced Disease Outbreak Simulation Capabilities RFI, May 2025.
With lockdowns, mass vaccination campaigns, and social distancing still on the table from the last around, it appears that AI and Machine Learning will play a much bigger role in the next.
For future innovation, the DARPA RFI asks applicants to: “Please describe any novel technical approaches – or applications of diverse technical fields (e.g., machine learning, artificial intelligence, complex systems theory, behavioral science) – that you believe would significantly enhance the state-of-the-art capabilities in this field or simulation of biological systems wholistically.”
Instead of putting a Dr. Fauci, a Dr. Birx, a replaceable CDC director, a TV doctor, a big pharma CEO, or a Cuomo brother out there to lie to your face about how they were all just following The ScienceTM, why not use AI and ML and combine them with behavioral sciences in order to concoct your “public health communications strategies?”
When you look at recently announced DARPA programs like Kallisti and MAGICS, which are aimed at creating an algorithmic Theory of Mind to model, predict, and influence collective human behavior, you start to get a sense of how all these programs can interweave:
“The MAGICS ARC calls for paradigm-shifting approaches for modeling complex, dynamic systems for predicting collective human behaviour.” — DARPA, MAGICS ARC, April 2025
On April 8, DARPA issued an Advanced Research Concepts (ARC) opportunity for a new program called “Methodological Advancements for Generalizable Insights into Complex Systems (MAGICS)” that seeks “new methods and paradigms for modeling collective human behavior.”
Nowhere in the MAGICS description does it mention modeling or predicting the behavior of “adversaries,” as is DARPA’s custom.
Instead, it talks at length about “modeling human systems,” along with anticipating, predicting, understanding, and forecasting “collective human behavior” and “complex social phenomena” derived from “sociotechnical data sets.”
Could DARPA’s MAGICS program be applied to simulating collective human behavior when it comes to the next public health emergency, be it real or perceived?
“The goal of an upcoming program will be to develop an algorithmic theory of mind to model adversaries’ situational awareness and predict future behaviour.” — DARPA, Theory of Mind Special Notice, December 2024.
In December 2024, DARPA launched a similar program called Theory of Mind, which was renamed Kallisti a month later.
The goal of Theory of Mind is to develop “new capabilities to enable national security decisionmakers to optimize strategies for deterring or incentivizing actions by adversaries,” according to a very brief special announcement.
DARPA never mentions who those “adversaries” are. In the case of a public health emergency, an adversary could be anyone who questions authoritative messaging.
The Theory of Mind program will also:
… seek to combine algorithms with human expertise to explore, in a modeling and simulation environment, potential courses of action in national security scenarios with far greater breadth and efficiency than is currently possible.
This would provide decisionmakers with more options for incentive frameworks while preventing unwanted escalation.
We are interested in a comprehensive overview of current and emerging technologies for disease outbreak simulation, how simulation approaches could be extended beyond standard modeling methods, and to understand how diseases spread within and between individuals including population level dynamics.
They say that all the modeling and simulating across programs is for “national security,” but that is a very broad term.
DARPA is in the business of research and development for national security purposes, so why is the Pentagon modeling disease outbreaks and intervention strategies while simultaneously looking to predict and manipulate collective human behavior?
If and when the next outbreak occurs, the same draconian and Orwellian measures that governments and corporations deployed in the name of combating COVID are still on the table.
And AI, Machine Learning, and the military will play an even bigger role than the last time around.
From analyzing wastewater to learning about disease spread; from developing pharmaceuticals to measuring the effects of lockdowns and vaccine passports, from modeling and predicting human behavior to coming up with messaging strategies to keep everyone in compliance – “improving preparedness for future public health emergencies” is becoming more militaristically algorithmic by the day.
“We are exploring innovative solutions to enhance our understanding of outbreak dynamics and to improve preparedness for future public health emergencies.” — DARPA, Advanced Disease Outbreak Simulation Capabilities RFI, May 2025.
Kennedy on Covid Jabs as a Military Operation:
"Turns out that the vaccines were developed not by Moderna and Pfizer. They were developed by NIH.”
“They're owned. The patents are owned 50% by NIH.
They were manufactured by military contractors.”
pic.twitter.com/R6y8i8tAsD— Jonny Paradise 🌱 (@plantparadise7) April 15, 2025
Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.
From LifeSiteNews
Canada’s Auditor General found that government procurement rules were not followed in creating the ArriveCAN app.
Canada’s Auditor General revealed that the former Liberal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau failed multiple times by violating contract procurement rules to create ArriveCAN, its controversial COVID travel app.
In a report released Tuesday, Auditor General Karen Hogan noted that between April 2015 to March 2024, the Trudeau government gave out 106 professional service contracts to GC Strategies Inc. This is the same company that made the ArriveCAN app.
The contracts were worth $92.7 million, with $64.5 million being paid out.
According to Hogan, Canada’s Border Services Agency gave four contracts to GC Strategies valued at $49.9 million. She noted that only 54 percent of the contracts delivered any goods.
“We concluded that professional services contracts awarded and payments made by federal organizations to GC Strategies and other companies incorporated by its co-founders were not in accordance with applicable policy instruments and that value for money for these contracts was not obtained,” Hogan said.
She continued, “Despite this, federal government officials consistently authorized payments.”
The report concluded that “Federal organizations need to ensure that public funds are spent with due regard for value for money, including in decisions about the procurement of professional services contracts.”
Hogan announced an investigation of ArriveCAN in November 2022 after the House of Commons voted 173-149 for a full audit of the controversial app.
Last year, Hogan published an audit of ArriveCAN and on Tuesday published a larger audit of the 106 contracts awarded to GC Strategies by 31 federal organizations under Trudeau’s watch.
The report concluded that one in five contracts did not have proper documentation to show correct security clearances. Also, the report found that federal organizations did not monitor how the contract work was being performed.
‘Massive scandal,’ says Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre
Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre said Hogan’s report on the audit exposed multiple improprieties.
“This is a massive scandal,” he told reporters Tuesday.
“The facts are extraordinary. There was no evidence of added value. In a case where you see no added value, why are you paying the bill?”
ArriveCAN was introduced in April 2020 by the Trudeau government and made mandatory in November 2020. The app was used by the federal government to track the COVID jab status of those entering the country and enforce quarantines when deemed necessary.
ArriveCAN was supposed to have cost $80,000, but the number quickly ballooned to $54 million, with the latest figures showing it cost $59.5 million.
As for the app itself, it was riddled with technical glitches along with privacy concerns from users.
LifeSiteNews has published a wide variety of reports related to the ArriveCAN travel app.
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
Trump deploys National Guard to Los Angeles after violent attacks on ICE agents
LA Mayor Karen Bass Makes New Demands Of Trump At Monday Night Press Conference
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
Leftists devastate Los Angeles with fiery riots against Trump immigration policy
