Connect with us

COVID-19

Wenstrup Releases Francis Collins’ House Testimony

Published

9 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Robert MaloneROBERT MALONE 

Wenstrup Releases Former NIH Director Francis Collins’ Transcript, Highlights Key Takeaways in New Memo

WASHINGTON — Today, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) released the transcript from Dr. Francis Collins’ transcribed interview. Dr. Collins helped lead the government’s Covid-19 pandemic response as the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) until his resignation at the end of 2021. In conjunction with the transcript, the Select Subcommittee also released a new staff memo that highlights the key takeaways from Dr. Collins’ transcribed interview. The memo can be found here.

The full transcript can be found here. Below are important exchanges from Dr. Collins’ transcribed interview:

The hypothesis that the Covid-19 pandemic was the result of a lab leak or lab-related accident is not a conspiracy theory. Despite previously disagreeing with the lab-leak theory — both in public and in private — Dr. Collins testified that the lab-leak hypothesis is indeed not a conspiracy theory.

Majority Counsel: “All it’s calling for is a “yes” or “no.” Is the possibility of a lab leak a conspiracy theory?”

Dr. Collins: “You have to define what you mean by a lab leak.”

Majority Counsel: “Putting aside de novo, the possibility of a laboratory or research-related accident, a researcher doing something in a lab, getting infected with a virus, and then sparking the pandemic. Is that scenario a conspiracy theory”?

Dr. Collins: “Not at this point.”


Majority Counsel: “We have talked about this an awful lot, I think I know the answer to the question, but I want to ask it. Is the origin of Covid-19 still unsettled science?”

Dr. Collins: “Yes.”

The “6-feet apart” social distancing guidance that federal public health officials endorsed was likely not based on any science or data. Dr. Collins agreed with Dr. Fauci that he has not seen any evidence to support the “6-feet apart” directive — which was promoted by public health officials and caused widespread economic and social damage to Americans.

Majority Counsel: “Moving on to social distancing and the various regulations surrounding that. On March 22, 2020, the CDC issued guidance describing social distancing to include remaining out congregant settings, avoiding mass gatherings, and maintaining a distance of approximately six feet from others when possible. We asked Dr. Fauci where the six feet came from and he said it kind of just appeared, is the quote. Do you recall science or evidence that supported the six-feet distance?”

Dr. Collins: “I do not.”

Majority Counsel: “Is that I do not recall or I do not see any evidence supporting six feet?”

Dr. Collins: “I did not see evidence, but I’m not sure I would have been shown evidence at that point.”

Majority Counsel: “Since then, it has been an awfully large topic. Have you seen any evidence since then supporting six feet?”

Dr. Collins: “No.”

NIH often lacks the necessary subject matter expertise to ensure US taxpayer funds are spent safely. Concerningly, Dr. Collins was unaware of any NIH policy that ensures foreign laboratories comply with US standards and are not at odds with U.S. national interests.

Majority Counsel: “Thank you. We’ve asked a number of people regarding the vetting or certifying process of foreign labs that receive U.S. dollars. Do you know what that process is?”

Dr. Collins: “I do not.”

Majority Counsel: “To your knowledge, does NIH certify foreign labs that receive U.S. dollars?”

Dr. Collins: “I don’t know that.”


Majority Counsel: “Again, what we’re trying to figure out is if, like, you get a proposal that has a foreign lab on it, if the NIH would do all the work themselves, or if they would call the State Department, or if they would call some other department to try to determine if that foreign lab is reputable.”

Dr. Collins: “I don’t know.”

The Trump Administration led the charge to rightfully terminate and later suspend EcoHealth Alliance, Inc.’s grant in April 2020. Dr. Collins testified that he supported every enforcement action suggested by the Trump administration and executed by the NIH.

Majority Counsel: “Moving into 2020. Before we start with individual letters, we asked Dr. Lauer and he testified that he would not sign or send a letter that he disagreed with. Do you have any reason to doubt that assertion?”

Dr. Collins: “No.”

Majority Counsel: “Do you agree with every enforcement action the NIH took against EcoHealth?”

Dr. Collins: “Yes.”

Dr. Collins claims that Dr. Fauci invited him to participate in the infamous February 1, 2020 phone call that allegedly “prompted” the public narrative that Covid-19 originated from nature and that vilified the lab-leak hypothesis.

This testimony directly contradicts earlier statements made by Dr. Fauci.

Majority Counsel: “How were you made aware of this call?”

Dr. Collins: “I was, I think – again, it’s four years ago – initially informed by Dr. Fauci that the call was happening. And then, I think I got this email forwarded about what the agenda was going to be from Dr. Farrar, who was clearly the person organizing the call.”

Majority Counsel: “Did Dr. Fauci ask you to join the call?”

Dr. Collins: “Yes.”


There we have it. Ex-director NIH Francis Collins had NO data and has not seen any data to support the social distancing edicts from HHS.


The transcript itself documents that Director Collins had evidence that masking would harm children.

From the transcript:

Q: In the realm of masking, obviously masks became this big to-do during the pandemic. One of the specific aspects that we are interested in is the science and data that supported it for children. So the WHO recommended against masking children less than five because masks are, I’m quoting, not in the overall interest of the child, and against children 6 to 11 from wearing masks because of again, quoting, the potential impact of wearing a mask on learning and psychological development. The United States recommended masking kids as young as two, so directly contradicted the WHO’s recommendation on that. 

Do you recall what science or data backed up that recommendation?

Collins: I have no knowledge of that. 

Q: Okay. There are now studies coming out regarding learning loss from both school closures and childhood mask wearing — for masks specifically, kids not being able to see adults form words and things like that and it’s causing speech issues. Are you aware of those issues? 

Collins: In a general way, yes. 

Q: Do you agree that there’s learning loss and other unintended consequences of mask-wearing? 

Collins: I have to depend on the experts who assess those things who have evidence, they say, that that’s the case.


This is all the evidence required to conclusively demonstrate that the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) needs a complete overhaul.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

  • Robert Malone

    Robert W. Malone is a physician and biochemist. His work focuses on mRNA technology, pharmaceuticals, and drug repurposing research. You can find him at Substack and Gettr

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

Brownstone Institute

How Did a Small Group Do This?

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By JEFFREY A. TUCKER

“You know, it’s kind of our own science experiment that we’re doing in real time.”

A very interesting study appeared last week by two researchers looking into the pandemic policy response around the world. They are Drs. Eran Bendavid and Chirag Patel of Stanford and Harvard, respectively. Their ambition was straightforward. They wanted to examine the effects of government policy on the virus.

In this ambition, after all, researchers have access to an unprecedented amount of information. We have global data on strategies and stringencies. We have global data on infections and mortality. We can look at it all according to the timeline. We have precise dating of stay-at-home orders, business closures, meeting bans, masking, and every other physical intervention you can imagine.

The researchers merely wanted to track what worked and what did not, as a way of informing future responses to viral outbreaks so that public health can learn lessons and do better next time. They presumed from the outset they would discover that at least some mitigation tactics achieved the aim.

It is hardly the first such study. I’ve seen dozens of such efforts, and there are probably hundreds or thousands of these. The data is like catnip to anyone in this field who is empirically minded. So far, not even one empirical examination has shown any effect of anything but that seems like a hard conclusion to swallow. So these two decided to take a look for themselves.

They even went to the next step. They assembled and reassembled all existing data in every conceivable way, running fully 100,000 possible combinations of tests that all future researchers could run. They found some correlations in some policies but the problem is that every time they found one, they found another instance in which the reverse seemed to be true.

You cannot infer causation if the effects are not stable.

After vast data manipulation and looking at every conceivable policy and outcome, the researchers reluctantly come to an incredible conclusion. They conclude that nothing that governments did had any effect. There was only cost, no benefit. Everywhere in the world.

Please just let that sink in.

The policy response destroyed countless millions of small businesses, ruined a generation in learning losses, spread ill health with substance abuse, wrecked churches that could not hold holiday services, decimated arts and cultural institutions, broke trade, unleashed inflation that is nowhere near done with us yet, provoked new forms of online censorship, built government power in a way without precedent, led to new levels of surveillance, spread vaccine injury and death, and otherwise shattered liberties and laws the world over, not to mention leading to frightening levels of political instability.

And for what?

Apparently, it was all for nought.

Nor has there been any sort of serious reckoning. The European Commission elections are perhaps a start, and heavily influenced by public opposition to Covid controls, in addition to other policies that are robbing nations of their histories and identities. The major media can call the victors “far right” all they want but this is really about common people simply wanting their lives back.

It’s interesting to speculate about precisely how many people were involved in setting the world on fire. We know the paradigm was tried first in Wuhan, then blessed by the World Health Organization. As regards the rest of the world, we know some names, and there were many cohorts in public health and gain-of-function research.

Let’s say there are 300 of them, plus many national security and intelligence officials plus their sister agencies around the world. Let’s just add a zero plus multiply that by the large countries, presuming that so many others were copycats.

What are we talking about here? Maybe 3,000 to 5,000 people total in a decision-making capacity? That might be far too high. Regardless, compared with the sheer number of people around the world affected, we are talking about a tiny number, a mico-percent of the world’s population or less making new rules for the whole of humanity.

The experiment was without precedent on this scale. Even Deborah Birx admitted it. “You know, it’s kind of our own science experiment that we’re doing in real time.” The experiment was on whole societies.

How in the world did this come to be? There are explanations that rely on mass psychology, the influence of pharma, the role of the intelligence services, and other theories of cabals and conspiracies. Even with every explanation, the whole thing seems wildly implausible. Surely it would have been impossible without global communications and media, which amplified the entire agenda in every respect.

Because of this, kids could not go to school. People in public parks had to stay within circles. Businesses could not open at full capacity. We developed insane rituals like masking when walking and unmasking when sitting. Oceans of sanitizer would be dumped on all people and things. People were made to be afraid of leaving their homes and clicked buttons to make groceries arrive on their doorsteps.

It was a global science experiment without any foundation in evidence. And the experience utterly transformed our legal systems and lives, introducing uncertainties and anxieties as never before and unleashing a level of crime in major cities that provoked residential, business, and capital flight.

This is a scandal for the ages. And yet hardly anyone in major media seems to be interested in getting to the bottom of it. That’s because, for bizarre reasons, looking too carefully at the culprits and policies here is regarded as being for Trump. And the hate and fear of Trump is so beyond reason at this point that whole institutions have decided to sit back and watch the world burn rather than be curious about what provoked this in the first place.

Instead of an honest accounting of the global upheaval, we are getting the truth in dribs and drabs. Anthony Fauci continues to testify for Congressional hearings and this extremely clever man threw his longtime collaborator under the bus, acting like David Morens was a rogue employee. That action seemed to provoke ex-CDC director Robert Redfield to go public, saying that it was a lab leak from a US-funded lab doing “dual purpose” research into vaccines and viruses, and strongly suggesting that Fauci himself was involved in the cover-up.

Among this group, we are quickly approaching the point of “Every man for himself.” It is fascinating to watch, for those of us who are deeply interested in this question. But for the mainstream media, none of this gets any coverage at all. They act like we should just accept what happened and not think anything about it.

This great game of pretend is not sustainable. To be sure, maybe the world is more broken than we know but something about cosmic justice suggests that when a global policy this egregious, this damaging, this preposterously wrongheaded, does all harm and no good, there are going to be consequences.

Not immediately but eventually.

When will the whole truth emerge? It could be decades from now but we already know this much for sure. Nothing we were promised about the great mitigation efforts by governments turned out to achieve anything remotely what they promised. And yet even now, the World Health Organization continues to uphold such interventions as the only way forward.

Meanwhile, the paradigm of bad science backed by force pervades nearly everything these days, from climate change to medical services to information controls.

When will evidence matter again?


Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

 

Author

  • Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

‘Incompetence’: Pentagon Doesn’t Know How Much Money It Sent To Chinese Entities For Risky Virus Research

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By NICK POPE

 

The Department of Defense (DOD) does not know how much money it directly or indirectly sent to Chinese entities to conduct research on viruses with pandemic potential, according to a new report by the DOD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The OIG’s report found that DOD has supplied Chinese entities — whether directly or indirectly via subgrants — with taxpayer cash to research pathogens and the enhancement thereof, but the exact figure is unknown because of “limitations” in the DOD’s internal tracking system. Government funding for such research in China has come under scrutiny since the coronavirus pandemic, which multiple government entities believe started when an engineered virus leaked from a Chinese laboratory that was hosting U.S. government-backed gain-of-function research.

“Incompetence, absurdity, insanity; it’s hard to find a word that adequately describes this. Of all the things that DOD tracks, funds for dangerous research that could find their way to a hostile regime should be at the top of the list of those they keep close tabs on,” Michael Chamberlain, director of Protect the Public’s Trust, told the Daily Caller News Foundation regarding the OIG report’s findings. “It makes you wonder if they really know where all our nuclear warheads are. The military is one of the few areas of government in which the public still maintains a modicum of trust, but, sadly, it looks like they are working hard to squander even that.”

The OIG review of this specific issue was required by the terms of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2024, which President Joe Biden signed into law in December 2023. The OIG’s investigation sought to determine just how much taxpayer cash was routed via “grants, contracts, subgrants, subcontracts, or any other type of agreement or collaboration, to Chinese research labs or to fund research or experiments in China or other foreign countries that could have reasonably resulted in the enhancement of pathogens of pandemic potential, from 2014 through 2023.”

Specifically, the OIG learned from U.S. Army officials that 12 grant awards fit the description of what it was investigating, seven of which were subgrants or subcontracts provided to entities in China or other foreign countries for research involving or related to enhanced pathogens, its report states. The OIG’s review also identified a further $9.9 million in funding that reached Chinese entities for research purposes, though that research was unrelated to pathogens.

“However, we did encounter significant challenges in searching for awards related to section 252 of the FY 2024 NDAA reporting requirement due to limitations in the DoD’s systems used to track contracts and grants,” the OIG report states. “Therefore, the full extent of DoD funds provided to Chinese research laboratories or other foreign countries for research related to enhancement of pathogens of pandemic potential is unknown.”

The issues with DOD’s grant tracking systems created “significant constraints” for OIG that “hindered [its] ability to conduct a thorough examination” of DOD’s involvement in funding this specific type of research, the report states.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) previously conducted a similar review of DOD’s spending and Chinese entities receiving taxpayer dollars to conduct research on pathogens of pandemic potential, and its final report — published in September 2022 — also detailed similar struggles with the DoD’s grant and sub-grant tracking systems.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic most likely began when the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, which was the site of gain-of-function research funded by the U.S. government via an organization called EcoHealth Alliance. Additionally, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray has acknowledged that his organization has reached a similar conclusion.

Despite this, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci has reiterated his position that a lab leak is the less likely scenario of the two as recently as Tuesday. The COVID-19 pandemic killed more than one million Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and millions more globally, while the American policy response to the pandemic inflicted considerable economic and social damage on the general public.

The DOD did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending

X