Connect with us

COVID-19

Intelligence Blob Boxed Out Lab Leak Proponents As It Sold Fading Biden On Natural Origins Theory

Published

4 months ago

7 minute read

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Nick Pope

Federal agencies and scientists suspecting that Covid-19 began with a laboratory leak in China were effectively boxed out of a key presidential briefing and report assessing the possible origins of a pandemic that killed 1.2 million Americans, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

The FBI was the only intelligence agency that was moderately confident in the lab leak theory, but the agency was not invited to a key August 2021 briefing with President Joe Biden in which other intelligence officials shared their consensus view that the virus more likely jumped from animals to humans,  according to the WSJ. Likewise, three scientists working for the Pentagon’s National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) found that Covid-19 was the product of risky research work — contradicting the position of the Defense Intelligence Agency, NCMI’s parent agency — but their findings did not make it into the report Biden received.

Most of the events covered in the WSJ’s reporting occurred during a “90-day sprint” in which federal defense and intelligence agencies worked quickly to assess the origins of Covid-19 in response to a May 2021 order from Biden. The WSJ also reported that Biden began to show clear signs of mental decline as early as the spring of 2021, and that advisers and staff were known to tightly control access to him and the information he consumed.

Jason Bannan, then a senior scientist for the FBI who had focused on the pandemic for more than a year, was prepared to be invited to the White House for the key Biden briefing in August 2021, but to his surprise, he was not summoned, according to the WSJ.

“Being the only agency that assessed that a laboratory origin was more likely, and the agency that expressed the highest level of confidence in its analysis of the source of the pandemic, we anticipated the FBI would be asked to attend the briefing,” Bannan told the WSJ. “I find it surprising that the White House didn’t ask.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) told the WSJ that it was not standard procedure for representatives of individual agencies to be invited to presidential briefings and that dissenting opinions about the origins of the pandemic were fairly represented in the final report. The ODNI and the National Intelligence Council “complied with all of the Intelligence Community’s analytic standards, including objectivity” throughout their work on Covid-19, a ODNI spokeswoman told the WSJ.

Moreover, the three NCMI scientists — John Hardham, Robert Cutlip and Jean-Paul Chretien — analyzed the virus in 2021 and found that the part of its “spike protein” allowing it to penetrate human cells was built with methods developed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and described in a Chinese research paper published in 2008, according to the WSJ. The scientists believed their findings suggested that Chinese scientists were doing “gain of function” research with the virus to find out if it could infect humans, and they began working with other officials, including Bannan’s partner at the FBI.

However, by July 2021 — about one month before top officials briefed Biden on the intelligence community’s findings — a more senior NCMI official instructed the three scientists to stop sharing their work with the FBI, according to the WSJ. The three scientists were reportedly told that the FBI was “off the reservation” when it came to Covid-19 origins, and some of their proposed edits to the report headed to Biden were not implemented.

The three NCMI scientists also wrote an unclassified paper in May 2020 that contested the natural origins theory, but they were not permitted to distribute it beyond NCMI, according to the WSJ. That assessment eventually leaked three years later and made it into the hands of Republican Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup, who led the Congressional subcommittee investigating the pandemic’s origins.

Meanwhile, State Department official and former World Health Organization (WHO) consultant Adrienne Keen was pushing others to not fully discount an early 2021 WHO report conducted with Chinese scientists that found the natural origins theory to be the most likely, according to the WSJ. The U.S. intelligence community generally dismissed the WHO assessment because of their view that Chinese officials and scientists likely constrained the investigation.

Shortly after the “90-day sprint” kicked off, Keen moved to the National Intelligence Council to be its director for global health security, according to the WSJ. The National Intelligence Council held significant sway in organizing the report on the intelligence community’s views about Covid-19 origins.

In the process of putting the report together, the National Intelligence Council worked up a chart showing how Covid-19 compares to past instances of diseases jumping to humans from animals, with examples like Ebola and Nipah, according to the WSJ. The FBI’s experts argued that the comparison was inapt because the other examples on the chart were far less contagious than Covid-19, but National Intelligence Council officials included the chart in the final version of the report anyway.

The FBI’s experts also butted heads with Keen and the National Intelligence Council over the geographic area where the pandemic started, according to the WSJ.

FBI experts argued that Covid-19 cases would be seen in a larger swath of China if the natural origin theory were true given that the species of bat thought to originally host the virus was not indigenous to Wuhan or anywhere close to the city, according to the WSJ. Keen rebutted that the geographic area of Covid-19’s origin was not known, and that the lack of cases in the large and highly-populated area between Wuhan and the bat’s habitat was irrelevant.

The White House and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 4 hours ago

Nigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Alberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change

Agriculture / 5 hours ago

Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

COVID-19

Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna

Published on May 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

A study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause mortality after Pfizer vaccination compared to Moderna

A new study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.

The study titled “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida” was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server. This study was headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi, with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo serving as senior author:

Study Overview

  • Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
  • Intervention: Two doses of either:
    • BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
    • mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
  • Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
  • Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
  • Main Outcomes:
    • All-cause mortality
    • Cardiovascular mortality
    • COVID-19 mortality
    • Non-COVID-19 mortality

All-cause mortality

Pfizer recipients had a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.

  • Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +229.2 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.37 (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.384 (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)

Cardiovascular mortality

Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)

COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)

Non-COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.356 (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)

Biological explanations

The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has been consistently reported worldwide:

The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:

  • Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
  • Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions

Final conclusion

Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.

Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on the mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.

As the authors conclude:

These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal accounton X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Canada’s health department warns COVID vaccine injury payouts to exceed $75 million budget

Published on April 30, 2025

By

Fr0m LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A Department of Health memo warns that Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program will exceed its $75 million budget due to high demand, with $16 million already paid out.

COVID vaccine injury payments are expected to go over budget, according to a Canadian Department of Health memo.

According to information published April 28 by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Department of Health will exceed their projected payouts for COVID vaccine injuries, despite already spending $16 million on compensating those harmed by the once-mandated experimental shots.

“A total $75 million in funding has been earmarked for the first five years of the program and $9 million on an ongoing basis,” the December memo read. “However the overall cost of the program is dependent on the volume of claims and compensation awarded over time, and that the demand remains at very high levels.”

“The purpose of this funding is to ensure people in Canada who experience a serious and permanent injury as a result of receiving a Health Canada authorized vaccine administered in Canada on or after December 8, 2020 have access to a fair and timely financial support mechanism,” it continued.

Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) was launched in December 2020 after the Canadian government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding COVID-19 jab-related injuries.

While Parliament originally budgeted $75 million, thousands of Canadians have filed claims after received the so-called “safe and effective” COVID shots. Of the 3,060 claims received to date, only 219 had been approved so far, with payouts totaling over $16 million.

Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.

The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.

Additionally, a recent study done by researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest showed that 17 countries have found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots as well as boosters.

Interestingly, while the Department of Health has spent $16 million on injury payouts, the Liberal government spent $54 million COVID propaganda promoting the vaccine to young Canadians.

The Public Health Agency of Canada especially targeted young Canadians ages 18-24 because they “may play down the seriousness of the situation.”

The campaign took place despite the fact that the Liberal government knew about COVID vaccine injuries, according to a secret memo.

Continue Reading

Trending

X