Sunday, May 3, 2026

Conspiracy Resource

Conspiracy news & views from all angles, up-to-the-minute and uncensored

Archives

COVID-19

THESE recently obtained Fauci emails may put him in JAIL

What should be done with Anthony Fauci?

Senator Rand Paul thinks jail time might be sufficient — but not likely.

“We referred him twice to the Department of Justice; we haven’t gotten a lot of action. We barely can even get a letter back saying they’ve received the referral,” the senator tells Dave Rubin.

However, the referral sent was a criminal referral for lying to Congress, which is a felony. Fauci could face up to five years in prison for that.

“I think he deserves that, but above and beyond that, he also deserves the culpability basically for funding the research that became the pandemic. And this is a big deal. This is no small mistake that he made,” Rand says.

“It may be one of the worst mistakes made in modern history.”

And why did that mistake happen?

“Because Dr. Fauci’s opinion is that, even if a pandemic were to occur, gain of function — this juicing up of viruses research — is worth it,” Rand says.

Rand doesn’t believe that the millions of Americans who died or whose family members died would agree that it was worth it.

“I think you’d find that most American families, and frankly, worldwide, would be upset, you know, that this actually came from government-funded projects at the behest of Anthony Fauci,” he says.

However, the American people might be more distrusting next time around, especially considering the recent release of damning emails from January 2020.

In these emails, Fauci’s tenor reflects that he’s concerned not only about the origin of the virus, but that the origins could “boomerang and come back” and that he would be exposed as the one who approved the funding that created it.

“We know, for one thing, Fauci allowed this research to happen in communist China without any review by the safety committee. That alone is malfeasance, and he should be punished for it as well,” Rand adds.

While the pile of evidence for Fauci’s betrayal of the American people is stacked astoundingly high, the mainstream media doesn’t seem to care — at all.

Rand is ultimately in disbelief, as there’s never “been a cover-up so thoroughly exposed and caught and delivered by their own emails,” and “yet not one person from the mainstream media has reported on this at all.”

Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, ” target=”_blank”>subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Read More
Elections

Weekend essay: For America’s elites, normal politics is no longer enough

We have heard the refrain repeatedly from the mainstream media’s many-headed hydra that Donald Trump represents an unprecedented tidal wave breaching every well-established and deeply rooted norm of politics and political discourse. But while Trump undoubtedly marches to his own drummer — one with a penchant for heart-stopping cymbal crashes — what these pundits and crusading journalists miss is the manner in which they themselves have done the very thing of which they accuse him. They have jettisoned well-worn conventions because of this elite class’s animal rage at Trump and the unapologetically unrefined, fine-china-shattering, working-class consciousness to which he gives voice.

There is no escaping the conclusion that for America’s elites, traditional politics — fundraising and campaigning to convince a majority of voters you’re the best candidate for the job — is no longer enough. For all their farcical talk of “going high” when the other side goes low, they are hard at work shooting holes in our collective hull, turning our nation into a tragic Titanic sinking lower day by day.

It began in the 2016 election cycle, when journalists violated the long-standing norm against calling politicians out-and-out liars. With the once-reputable New York Times leading the way, calling Trump a liar on its front page on September 16, 2016, the ever-tenuous guardrail of journalistic objectivity came crashing down. Those of us who recall George H.W. Bush’s “read my lips” vow, “Slick Willie” Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, or George W. Bush’s concoction of “weapons of mass destruction” to justify trillions of dollars and many lives wasted on our misadventure in Iraq know that politicians have never been models of honesty and integrity.

But even if a case could be made that Trump broke the mold, the problem when media start engaging in active name-calling, taking it upon themselves to decide who is or isn’t a liar, is that journalists, with their well-documented left leanings — Democrat journalists went from near parity with Republican journalists in the 1970s to outnumbering Republican journalists by a 4-1 margin today — cannot be trusted to apply any standard evenhandedly.

Many no longer even aspire to evenhandedness. While 76% of the general public believes that the media should always give both sides equal coverage, that view is shared by only 44% of journalists, with 55% — including a still more disturbing 63% of journalists ages 18-29 — having the opposite view.

It should surprise no one, then, that although Joe Biden tells lies practically every time he has a microphone in hand, often involving thoroughly outlandish claims such as his son Beau dying in Iraq, or how he got student loan forgiveness passed through Congress, or that he never discussed his son Hunter’s business dealings, or that gas prices went down after he took office, or that he’d been arrested for taking part in civil rights demonstrations, the media, nonetheless, never brand Biden a “liar,” the way they do on a dime when it comes to Trump.

Shortly after Trump won the 2016 presidential election, the media turned up the dial farther still. They concocted the Russian collusion hoax to question the legitimacy of his election, while casting a long shadow over his presidency and miring Trump and his staff in years of debilitating, relentless coverage, including the notorious Robert Mueller special counsel investigation. The New York Times’ obsessive coverage of these doings won the paper a Pulitzer Prize.

But the Times’ prize-winning journalism did not extend to uncovering anything even remotely approaching the truth behind these events, which was revealed to us by independent journalists, such as Matt Taibbi. What really happened, in a nutshell, is that the Clinton campaign, with Hillary Clinton’s personal knowledge and consent, fed fake “research” about Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia to the FBI, which used such research as a pretext to initiate surveillance of Trump aide Carter Page and anyone connected with him. That, in turn, set off a chain of events that led to years of breathless “breaking news” pushed by Clinton and her operatives and perpetuated by their gullible or dishonest media lapdogs.

Years later, at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars and an untold number of American minds plunged into the depths of Trump derangement syndrome, the Trump-Russia connection fizzled out completely, the infamous Chistopher Steele “pee tape” proved a total hoax, and the allegedly Russia-connected, Trump-promoting fake Twitter accounts that were alleged to have helped Trump steal the 2016 election turned out to belong, for the most part, to actual, Trump-supporting Americans. For the press, the allegations were simply too good to check.

But no one was punished for partaking in this truly incredible disinformation and election delegitimization campaign. The media proved less than eager to hold their own feet to the fire for their dereliction of duty, which is why the New York Times didn’t relinquish its unearned Pulitzer Prize and why most Americans remain in the dark about what really occurred.

Instead, the role allegedly played by the “Russians” on Twitter in swaying the election to Trump prompted waves of congressional and media pressure for social networks to rein in “right-wing” “disinformation.”

This, in turn, played into the next round of flagrant norm-flouting by the anti-Trump left when, in 2020, not only was free (and, in many cases, accurate) speech questioning COVID’s origins or the safety and efficacy of experimental vaccines shut down by social media working in direct coordination with government actors, but also, social media directly enabled Joe Biden’s electoral victory. First, in May 2020, Twitter, for the first time ever, flagged a presidential tweet with a “fact-check” warning. In a May 26, 2020, tweet, Trump had questioned the reliability of mail-in voting, to which Twitter had appended its then-shocking alert:

Those clicking on the warning would be directed to Twitter’s own “what you need to know” page, in which Twitter’s internal Ministry of Truth had taken it upon itself to proclaim that Trump had “falsely claimed mail-in ballots would lead to ‘a Rigged Election’” and, further, that “fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud.”

The extraordinary thing about Twitter’s warning was that, strictly speaking, there was no fact to check. Trump had not stated a fact but rather had made a prediction about what the likely outcome of mail-in voting would be. His contention that there is “no way” mail-in ballots won’t be “substantially fraudulent” is, in that respect, akin to a tweet stating there is “no way the Bears beat the Packers on Sunday” or, for that matter, “no way” Trump loses the next election.

In any event, Trump’s prediction was not quite as baseless and unsupported as the powers that be on Twitter would have had their users believe. Although the 2020 version of the New York Times published a series of stories touting the reliability of mail-in voting, the very same newspaper in October 2012 ran a story headlined “Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises.”

“Votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show,” the Times reported. “Election officials reject almost 2 percent of ballots cast by mail, double the rate for in-person voting.”

After Twitter had crossed the Rubicon, flagging speech by a sitting president and giving itself the role of arbiter of truth instead of letting the electorate sort it out, the social media mullahs grew still more emboldened, flagging Trump’s tweets repeatedly. In an especially egregious instance, when Trump, in the context of the Black Lives Matter riots of June 2020, warned in a June 23 tweet that if the rioters tried to turn D.C. into an “autonomous zone” (the way they had been allowed to do with impunity in Seattle), they “will be met with serious force,” Twitter flagged the tweet as “abusive behavior”:

The idea that a president using a nonspecific threat of force as a deterrent to potential chaos and violence could be flagged for “abusive behavior” is, naturally, unprecedented and outrageous. Yet it is also, just as naturally, only a small speed bump on the slippery slope down which the left’s corporate and media elites were allowing our nation to careen.

The absolute nadir of Twitter’s election interference efforts came in October 2020, on the eve of the 2020 election, when the New York Post published its exposé, based on the contents of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop, of what has now become the ever-growing influence-peddling scandal involving Joe Biden.

Defying every convention of free speech and the free press, Twitter and Facebook baselessly censored the story as “misinformation,” resulting in its being similarly labeled or else ignored by sources in the mainstream media. Nearly four in five survey respondents believe that the story, had it not been censored, could have swung the outcome of the closely contested 2020 election to President Trump. For reasons like this, one does not even have to buy into Trump’s claims of voter fraud in order to conclude that the 2020 presidential election was, indeed, stolen.

But not content with their unprecedented role in potentially swaying the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, the emboldened organs of the leftist media and commentariat have taken their norm-flouting campaign up several more notches in anticipation of what is, as of now, likely to be a Trump-Biden rematch in 2024.

First, of course, while continuing to do their best to downplay the increasingly credible allegations of Biden’s corrupt dealings on behalf of his ne’er-do-well son Hunter, these forces have done their best to validate and normalize the four separate indictments brought by leftist prosecutors against Donald Trump. These have been the subject of endless press coverage in recent months and weeks, so no need to discuss them at length here. Let it suffice to say, regardless of how one personally feels about the strength of each of the individual cases, it is hard to dispute that the indictments have further divided an already polarized nation. It would be a gross error in judgment and an extremely dangerous precedent to charge the most prominent representative of one of the nation’s two major political parties with marginal crimes that are the subject of widespread political disagreement.

In that light, the fantastically overbroad Georgia indictment, complete with mug shot, promises to be a televised show trial, and the New York indictment for paying hush money to a porn star, elevated into a strained felony by the febrile imagination of a far-left prosecutor, is pure absurdity. But most obviously appalling are the two separate banana republic-style federal indictments in which a sitting president’s Justice Department is actively persecuting his foremost political rival — the one case concerning retention of classified government documents, a victimless crime for which hardly anyone ever gets prosecuted, and the other one stemming from the events of January 6, 2021.

The January 6 affair is especially concerning, because what has been histrionically and repeatedly framed by Democratic politicians and the mainstream media as an armed “insurrection” against democracy is, in reality, little more than a political protest that turned violent, the sort of thing that happened on a far greater scale during the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020, largely without consequences. There is, moreover, very strong evidence — largely ignored and/or knowingly concealed by the same press that has been serving as the current government’s de facto propaganda arm — that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in coordination with others, deliberately acted to delay any substantial enforcement response to the riots. She opted instead to allow the rioters to breach the Capitol in order to manufacture a cause célèbre against Trump, despite the fact that he had expressly called for peace, telling his supporters to march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically.” After the violence began, Trump implored them, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” and “We have to have peace. So go home.”

Because these transparently political indictments have predictably failed to convince many voters that Trump is a criminal, as opposed to the target of political persecution, and may even be bolstering his support among Republican voters, the Trump-hating elites have trotted out their most outrageous and unprecedented gambit to date. Despite the fact that Trump has been convicted of no crime and, more than that, has been acquitted of the charge of inciting an insurrection by the U.S. Senate, an unhinged plot has begun to take shape among the leftist elites and like-minded elites on the #NeverTrump right to disqualify Trump under section three of the 14th Amendment. That section disqualifies from public office those who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States” and was intended to prevent Confederate rebels from holding office in the reconstituted postwar nation.

The wacky suggestion has been made — with the Atlantic graciously playing host to a widely circulated article normalizing this call to banditry — that officials in each of the 50 states could invoke this mechanism on their own and thereby bounce Trump off their official ballots, notwithstanding the will of actual voters. It would then be up to the judiciary to deal with the fallout of what is certain to be a constitutional crisis that will ultimately find its way to the Supreme Court.

At its essence, the 14th Amendment gambit amounts to nothing less than a frontal assault on the democratic process, a brazen attempt to strip voters of the power to choose their own leaders. And these — invoking and misusing an obscure, Civil War-era legalism to try to throw a popular leader off the ballot — are the ironic lengths to which our elites are willing to go to defend our democracy against itself.

Abandoning all pretense to journalistic objectivity to brand Trump a liar; pushing a fake Russia conspiracy to question the legitimacy of his election and his presidency; flagging his speech on social media; censoring true stories reporting on his opponent’s corruption on the eve of the 2020 election; indicting him four times (and counting?) in the midst of a new election cycle on highly questionable charges; and now, hatching, as a fail-safe, a wacky scheme to kick him off state ballots using legalistic chicanery: There are no lengths to which Trump’s enemies will not go, no depths to which they will not sink.

In the name of defending “norms,” the norm of journalistic diligence and evenhandedness has been abandoned, the norm of free speech and the free press trampled, the norm of the media and social media playing purely neutral roles in the midst of an election mocked, the norm of judicious use of prosecutorial discretion shredded, and the norm of free and fair elections decided by the people without interference from elites grasping the reins of power utterly demolished.

This much is certain: In a nation already on the brink, their reckless scramble is going to wreak political havoc for years to come, bringing on waves of tit-for-tat retaliation as we come to understand that the battle for political supremacy is a bare-knuckle brawl, where nothing is off the table, the courts and the media are merely pawns to be played in a winner-take-all game, and no blow is too low, no trick too dirty to be tried, when absolutely everything is at stake.

Alexander Zubatov is a practicing attorney in New York specializing in general commercial litigation. He is also a writer of poetry, fiction, drama, essays, and polemics.

Read More
COVID-19

Rand Paul offers his theories for Dr. Fauci’s alleged secret visit to CIA headquarters: ‘Further the cover-up’

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) floated on Thursday his theories for why Dr. Anthony Fauci allegedly visited the CIA headquarters to advise the intelligence agency on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

What is the background?

The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic revealed this week that it had received “concerning information” about the CIA’s investigation into the origins of the pandemic.

In a letter sent to the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, committee Chairman Brad Wenstrup explained:

The information provided suggests that Dr. Fauci was escorted into Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Headquarters—without a record of entry—and participated in the analysis to “influence” the Agency’s review. Our goal is to ensure the scientific investigative process regarding the origins of COVID-19 was fair, impartial, and free of alternative influence.

Importantly, the visit remains an allegation only; Congress has not made public evidence proving the visit took place.

What did Paul say?

The Kentucky Republican, Fauci’s archenemy, posited three theories for the purpose of Fauci’s alleged visit to CIA headquarters.

First, Paul suggested that Fauci outright “convinced the CIA to dishonestly obscure the lab origin of COVID.” Second, Paul suggested the inverse, that the “CIA convinced Fauci to obscure the lab origin of COVID.”

Finally, Paul suggested, “An outside entity or person with unlimited monetary resources convinced Fauci to influence the CIA to obscure the lab origin of COVID.”

One thing, however, “is for certain,” Paul declared, “Fauci did not visit the CIA to seek the truth but to facilitate and further the cover-up.”

The CIA is one of the intelligence agencies that has not reached a definitive conclusion about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency remain unable to determine the precise origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, as both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting,” explained a declassified report from the director of national intelligence.

That conclusion, or lack thereof, was purportedly reached despite six of seven CIA investigators allegedly concluding the pandemic originated at the Wuhan bio lab.

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

Read More
COVID-19

Fauci accused of covertly going to CIA headquarters to ‘influence’ COVID-19 origins probe

Anthony Fauci was escorted to CIA headquarters “without a record of entry” to “influence” the agency’s COVID-19 origins investigation, according to
allegations brought to light Tuesday by Congress’ Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

In addition to letting China off the hook for the deaths of millions of Americans, the zoonotic origins theory preferred by Fauci and entertained by those he influenced would indicate that the funding provided to the Wuhan coronavirus lab by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases under Fauci’s watch was not ultimately an investment in global devastation.

The accusation raised Tuesday by the subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), comes just weeks after a CIA whistleblower
accused the agency of bribing six analysts on its COVID Discovery Team to reject the theory that the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

What’s the background?

Federal documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit
revealed earlier this year that the NIAID, under former director Fauci, funded dangerous experiments on coronaviruses at the WIV in China’s Hubei province.

Millions among the dollars funneled from Fauci’s agency to the WIV were mediated by Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, whose subcontractor Ben Hu — the lead on gain-of-function research on SARS-like coronaviruses — was among the
patients zero at the lab and ostensibly among the very first infected in the world.

Despite the nature of the gain-of-function research on coronaviruses conducted at the WIV, past concerns about lab security, the geography of the virus’ early spread, and multiple other clues, Fauci stressed that the virus killing off vulnerable populations at home was likely not man-made but the result of a trans-species jump.

The former NIAID director apparently went to great lengths to convince others of this narrative.

Congressional investigators
indicated in March that Fauci commissioned, edited, and gave final approval to the impactful March 2020 study published in the journal Nature, “The Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2” — an oft-cited study whose authors expressed concerns in private about the “sh** show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release,” making clear that their cause was “political.”

Fauci repeatedly referenced this paper on the national stage, including once from the White House podium, to bolster the zoonotic origins theory.

With the weight of this study in an esteemed journal behind him and his hand in its fabrication hidden, Fauci
told CBS’ “Face the Nation” in March 2020 that COVID-19 was an animal virus that jumped to a human.

Fauci later
told National Geographic in May 2020 that notwithstanding the concerns privately expressed by other virologists, there was “no scientific evidence” to suggest the virus had come from the Wuhan lab.

It appears Fauci may have secretly advanced his preferred narrative in Langley, Virginia, as well.

Questionable intelligence at the CIA

Wenstrup stated Tuesday, “According to information gathered by the Select Subcommittee, Dr. Anthony Fauci, then-director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, played a role in the Central Intelligence Agency’s review of the origins of COVID-19.”

“The information provided suggests that Dr. Fauci was escorted into Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Headquarters — without a record of entry — and participated in the analysis to ‘influence’ the Agency’s review,” continued the chairman.

In an effort to “ensure the scientific investigative process regarding the origins of COVID-19 was fair, impartial, and free of alternative influence,” Wenstrup is now demanding all documents and communications pertaining to Fauci’s access to CIA facilities and CIA employees, including correspondences between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIAID, and the U.S. Marshals Service, which had been assigned to protect Fauci.

Additionally, the congressional investigators want HHS Special Agent Brett Rowland made available for a “voluntary transcribed interview at a date to be determined.”

In a Sept. 26
letter to HHS Inspector General Christi Grimm, Wenstrup stated, “The American people deserve the truth — to know the origins of the virus and whether there was a concerted effort by public health authorities to suppress the lab leak theory for political or national security purposes.”

It is presently unclear whether Fauci’s supposed secret visit to Langley is directly connected to the CIA’s
alleged efforts to monetarily incentivize CIA analyst to change their position on the virus’ origin.

A senior high-level CIA officer
told congressional investigators earlier this month that following a review, six members of a seven-member COVID Discovery Team determined there was sufficient evidence to make a low-confidence assessment that COVID-19 originated from the Wuhan lab. Only one member allegedly figured zoonosis to be responsible.

The six analysts were bribed to change their position, according to the whistleblower.

Wenstrup and Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) wrote a letter to CIA Director William Burns requesting documents and communications pertaining to the research team and its interactions with other branches of the government, along with pay and bonus histories of the team’s members.

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic asked on X, “What difference does it make to @CIA whether the pandemic originated at a Chinese lab or in nature?”

Early in the pandemic, the U.S. intelligence community
concluded that the virus “was not manmade or genetically modified.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has since changed its tune, noting in a
June 2023 report that the intelligence community found “biosafety concerns” at the WIV and determined “genetic engineering” of coronaviruses was in fact taking place at the Chinese military-linked facility.

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

Read More
COVID-19

Did the CIA BRIBE experts to dismiss COVID lab-leak theory? COVID subcommittee member SPILLS the details.

It’s been almost four years since the COVID-19 pandemic swept the globe, but we still don’t know exactly where the virus came from. Was it really a pathogen spawned in a bat cage? Or did it come from a lab with sinister intentions?

Army Reserve officer, war veteran, doctor, and COVID subcommittee member Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) joins Glenn Beck to discuss this most serious issue.

Wenstrup tells Glenn that when the pandemic began, he began looking into how to effectively treat patients, and during this research, he “discovered that we were actually engaging with China in the lab in Wuhan to create gain-of-function viruses.”

Fast forward three years, and now “we have somebody coming forward as a whistleblower … to both the Intelligence Committee and to the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, which I chair, and he’s made many allegations,” says Wenstrup.

“The CIA, in trying to figure out whether this came from a lab or from nature, put together a COVID discovery team,” he tells Glenn.

Here were their results:

“Six of the people — they came to the conclusion with some level of confidence that this came from a lab,” Wenstrup explains, “and the senior person, according to these charges, said it came from nature.”

So it was a 6 to 1 vote.

But was that shared with the public? Of course not.

But they didn’t just conceal the findings; they outright lied.

“What they ended up doing at the end of the day [was] releasing to the public and to the Intelligence Community … [that] the CIA was unable to determine” the origins of the virus, explains Wenstrup.

“Well, it sounds like they had a really high number of people who were able to determine,” he says.

Granted Wenstrup’s committee has a responsibility to “follow up on everything to do with the with the pandemic,” it’s now “seeking documents, communications,” and to speak with “Andrew Makridis, who the whistleblower says was the chief operating officer and had a lot to do with constructing this.”

Wenstrup admits that it’s deeply concerning to find out “our own intelligence department is changing things from what people actually did and said to fit a narrative that they want.”

To hear the full conversation, watch the clip below.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, ” target=”_blank”>subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Read More
COVID-19

Whistleblower claims CIA paid off analysts to reject COVID-19 lab-leak theory: ‘Biggest COVID coverup yet’

The Central Intelligence Agency bribed analysts who concluded the COVID-19 pandemic originated from a lab leak in Wuhan, a new whistleblower has alleged.

The explosive allegation was disclosed in a letter that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R) and Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R) sent CIA Director William Burns on Tuesday.

The lawmakers explained that a CIA analyst, described as a “multi-decade, senior-level” official, testified that CIA leaders paid off six agency analysts who had concluded the pandemic originated through a lab leak — animal-to-human transmission.

“According to the whistleblower, the Agency assigned seven officers to a COVID Discovery Team (Team). The Team consisted of multi-disciplinary and experienced officers with significant scientific expertise,” the lawmakers wrote. “According to the whistleblower, at the end of its review, six of the seven members of the Team believed the intelligence and science were sufficient to make a low confidence assessment that COVID-19 originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

“The seventh member of the Team, who also happened to be the most senior, was the lone officer to believe COVID-19 originated through zoonosis,” they explained.

“The whistleblower further contends that to come to the eventual public determination of uncertainty, the other six members were given a significant monetary incentive to change their position,” the lawmakers said.

The claims are significant because the allegations both contradict and explain a declassified report the director of national intelligence released in June. That report said of the CIA’s investigation:

The Central Intelligence Agency and another agency remain unable to
determine the precise origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, as both hypotheses rely on
significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting.

That report explained the National Intelligence Council and four other intelligence agencies believe COVID originated from animal-to-human transmission, while the Energy Department and FBI believe “a laboratory-associated incident was the most likely cause.”

Turner and Wenstrup, therefore, demanded Burns turn over all documents related to the CIA’s investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic by Sept. 26.

Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has relentlessly pursued the truth of the pandemic and the U.S. government’s role in it, called the new whistleblower allegations the “biggest COVID coverup yet.”

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

Read More
COVID-19

Commentary: The people vs. Anthony Fauci and ‘white coat supremacy’

Dr. Anthony Fauci is concerned that “people will not abide” by the Centers for Disease Control’s recent masking recommendations. For their part, the people have good reason to disregard the recommendations — and Fauci along with them.

After more than 50 years in government and 38 years heading the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci announced his retirement at the end of 2022. With the 82-year-old still dishing it out, Americans might dial it back a few years.

At various times, Fauci recommended that people wear no masks, then one mask, and then two masks. As the Cochrane study showed in January, masks are more or less useless against COVID-19. In an appearance last week on CNN, Fauci said other studies showed otherwise but failed to name a single one.

Fauci was also a hawk on the vaccines that failed to prevent infection and transmission of COVID. Indeed, Fauci and Joe Biden, both vaccinated and boosted, have tested positive for COVID. The NIAID boss wanted children, the least vulnerable group, to get multiple vaccinations nevertheless.

Fauci funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology to conduct gain-of-function research that makes viruses more lethal and transmissible. The WIV, in turn, received shipments of deadly pathogens courtesy of Dr. Xiangguo Qiu, a Chinese national who headed the special pathogens unit at Canada’s National Microbiology Lab. In 2017 and 2018 alone, Dr. Qiu made at least five trips to the WIV.

Fauci maintained that the virus arose naturally in the wild, which is a matter of speculation, not science. The mysterious virus was able to produce new variants that Fauci said were already here and highly transmissible. And of course, that demanded more vaccinations, masking, distancing, and so forth. Like the alleged natural origin of the virus, none of this was authenticated or replicated by scientists with no ties to the NIAID, the NIH, the CDC, or Big Pharma.

Fauci is on record that he represents science. That is a strange claim for a medical doctor whose biography shows no advanced degrees in biochemistry or molecular biology. Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction, has said Fauci “doesn’t understand electronic microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine. He should not be in a position like he’s in.” But he was, heading the NIAID from 1984 through 2022.

During that time, Fauci oversaw drug trials on African-American foster children in New York, forcing them to take AZT and other dangerous drugs. For the full story, read “The Real Anthony Fauci” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. And as Rebecca Culshaw contends in “The Real AIDS Epidemic: How the Tragic HIV Mistake Threatens Us All,” fast-track approval for mRNA vaccines was “essentially a massive clinical trial [that] was conducted in real time on the entire population.” The results are still coming in.

Anthony Fauci earned a medical degree in 1966, but if he ever practiced medicine, it was only for a short time. In 1968, he took a cushy “yellow beret” job with the National Institutes of Health. The number of COVID patients Fauci has treated is unknown, but a fair estimate would be zero. He’s a bureaucrat, first and foremost, wielding executive-level power but never having to face the voters.

This Lysenko-esque figure is still running his mouth, but the people have little if any reason to heed anything he says. On the other hand, since he’s never been held accountable, Congress has good reason to investigate him. The same goes for the Centers for Disease Control, which has failed at its primary task.

The CDC’s intrepid Epidemic Intelligence Service failed to prevent the “novel coronavirus” from arriving stateside. In early 2020, EIS veteran Nancy Messonnier delivered a series of briefings that faithfully echoed China’s talking points. The EIS, supposedly the nation’s medical CIA, also seems unable to detect the new variants and stop their spread within the country.

People yearning to breathe free and live free should reject the CDC’s mask recommendations. For its part, Congress has good reason to downsize the CDC and NIAID or eliminate them altogether. White coat supremacy is incompatible with a constitutional republic. The struggle against white coat supremacy is the struggle of memory against forgetting.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of “Hollywood Party,” “Barack ’Em Up: A Literary Investigation,” and “Yes I Con: United Fakes of America.” He has written for the Wall Street Journal, FrontPage magazine, and many other publications.

Read More
COVID-19

‘A lot of red flags’: Florida surgeon general advises people to stay away from new COVID-19 vaccine

Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo said during a press conference on Thursday that people should not receive the updated COVID-19 booster vaccine.

The booster in question has not yet been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but it is apparently designed to defend against the BA.2.86 Omicron subvariant of the illness, per Fox News.

Ladapo said that “there’s a new vaccine that’s coming around the corner, a new mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and there’s essentially no evidence for it.”

“There’s been no clinical trial done in human beings showing that it benefits people,” he continued.

“There’s been no clinical trial showing that it is a safe product for people — and not only that, but then there are a lot of red flags.”

While addressing specific concerns about the booster, he suggested that the updated vaccine “actually cause cardiac injury in many people.”

However, Lapado urged Floridians to make their own decisions based on their own convictions. He suggested people make decisions based on their “resonance of truth,” instead of relying on “very educated people telling you what you should think.”

“When they try to convince you to be comfortable and agree with things that don’t feel comfortable, [that] don’t feel like things you should agree with, that is a sign, right? That’s a gift,” Lapado said.

Ladapo went on to suggest people take on healthy nutrition habits instead of leaning on updated vaccines.

Last month, the surgeon general condemned the use of COVID masks and a new round of potential lockdowns, writing on X: “What do you call re-imposing mask policies that have been proven ineffective or restarting lockdowns that are known to cause harm? You don’t call it sanity. These terrible policies only work with your cooperation. How about refusing to participate…”

Ladapo’s comments about mask mandates come as the mandates appear to be making a comeback in some parts of the country. The New York City health department suggested that masking up over Labor Day weekend was a “good idea.”

Lionsgate has apparently instituted a mask mandate for certain floors of a California office, and Morris Brown College in Georgia also implemented a mask mandate at the start of the school year.

Florida law has banned businesses, schools, and government entities from implementing such mandates.

Dan Bongino recently posted: “Only morons wear surgical masks as protection against a microscopic airborne virus. Legitimate imbeciles. We’re all laughing at you for falling for this stupidity yet again.”

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

Read More
COVID-19

Anthony Fauci was just CONFRONTED by the most UNUSUAL suspect

It’s an odd day when CNN makes sense.

This past Saturday, CNN host Michael Smerconish confronted Anthony Fauci with a study that showed masking made little to no difference in the course of COVID-19.

“The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illness, including COVID-19, was published last month,” Smerconish told Fauci, explaining that the conclusion was “there is just no evidence that they — masks — make any difference.”

Even the N95 masks were found to “make no difference.”

Fauci retorted with what seemed to be more garbled nonsense, saying that on an individual level they work, but “when you’re talking about the effect on the epidemic or the pandemic as a whole, the data are less strong.”

“This dumba** really wants you to believe that somehow it didn’t work on a pandemic level, but on an individual level, they worked,” Sara Gonzales of “The News & Why It Matters” comments. “Well, no, idiot. Because if they worked on an individual level, they would work on a pandemic larger scale.”

Jaco Booyens, while noting how ridiculous Fauci’s reasoning is, isn’t surprised.

“It’s so on par with their whole message,” he says. “The collective.”

“The individual doesn’t really matter, you know. So the collective is made of a bunch of individuals, and the virus attacks the individual, right. And if the mask doesn’t work for the individual, it won’t work for the collective,” he continues.

Gonzales notes that despite the plethora of information now available, like the study the CNN host brought up, people are still beginning to wear masks again.

“I have seen people start wearing masks again in public. I automatically judge you. I am judging you,” she says, adding,

“Like you’re really, you are really going to do this again.”

Want more from The News & Why It Matters?

To enjoy more roundtable rundowns of the top stories of the day, ” target=”_blank”>subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Read More
COVID-19

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

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

What about the study?

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

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

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

What happened on CNN?

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

Fauci, however, refused to budge.

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

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


Dr. Fauci responds to study that says masks didn’t work

www.youtube.com

There are several problems with Fauci’s response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More