…reads like a bioweapons spy thriller.
Except, sadly, it’s not fiction. And Fauci (and others) have yet to be held to account.
2 thoughts on “Rand Paul’s Fauci Expose”
Comments are closed.
…reads like a bioweapons spy thriller.
Except, sadly, it’s not fiction. And Fauci (and others) have yet to be held to account.
Comments are closed.
I have yet to read this book (but I plan to) but I’m not expecting to learn anything new I haven’t already shared with the readers of this fine blog. Most of the “bombshell” information about NIAID funding of GoF in Wuhan, that would be contained in the book, was already publicly available from the “Bat Lady’s” own published work still available on ArXiv and other pre-print servers. Papers that were published in 2017 even before. I have posted numerous links to these papers in this fine blog. But unfortunately, my skill set at retrieval using WordPress search mechanics makes it too cumbersome and time consuming to do it here and now. If you expend the energy, you will be able to find them.
Does the CIA have mens rhea here? I wonder. It’s impossible for me to believe that prior to the outbreak in Jan 2020, the CIA was unaware of the both the type and nature of the research being conducted at Wuhan.
Bio weapons are and old, old topic. Going back as far as ancient times when long dead animal carcasses would be catapulted over city walls during a siege in an attempt to affect those within. The immediate WWII predecessor to our modern CIA knew about the horrid biological “experiments” conducted on captive Chinese and captured Allied soldiers alike by the Japanese during WWII.
Somewhere in the 50s and certainly in the 60s and beyond knowing of the work of USAMRIID etc. it would be unbelievably negligent for the CIA not to have an active bio-weapons intel op.
But the question is, how to get an inkling of what an adversaries bio lab is up to? It isn’t exactly an open book. Or is it? Outstanding science researchers tend to come from academia. Not in all cases, but in the vast majority, esp. in the bio-sciences. They always need funding. But in traditional science funding comes with strings. Those strings usually require publication of results. It’s a logical and safe bet, that the scientists being funded are ahead and potentially setting the direction, intentional or otherwise for any weaponization effort. Esp. in a dual-use lab situation like Wuhan. So how better to keep abreast of the situation than by monitoring their progress via money and reading their research papers? It is certainly far better than letting them go off on their own with NO transparency to the leading edge work being done by the “civilian” side. (In the Wuhan matter; the CCP is in charge, remember?)
That Fauci was able to “brief” the CIA on the “proximal origins idea” and that the very fact that his presence there was never logged has to beggar the question why? In theory he wasn’t doing anything different than what he was presenting to the other federal agencies. Right? So why the cover up? There needs to be more digging here. Especially in the time-frames prior to 2017 and prior to the Obama moratorium.
This is a dangerous route to funding dangerous research. With little to no accountability. I can understand the need for secrecy in these matters, but there has to be some oversight. Someone (or preferably someones) who can stand up and say, “No we shouldn’t be funding XYZ as an incentive to pursue or steer this research. Unless we are already way out ahead. Maybe we have secretly stockpiled vaccines or have the ability to produce them quickly should the adversary decide to weaponize and in the process have an accident. Steering a bio lab in a hostile country in this fashion might make a modicum of sense. I still think it is very risky business, but short of an act of war, compared to what alternative?
Now out in the open, there is much more that can be done to reform how the NIH and NIAID fund research. Using cutouts like the Echo Health Alliance also needs careful review. I am in total agreement with Rand Paul. Should there be no reforms in this area we are bound to repeat it.
I have my suspicions that the:
… high-ranking former CDC official told me in confidence that he believes the next leak will be worse, with a fatality rate ranging from 5 percent to as high as 50 percent” (Paul, 419).
was Dr. Robert Redfield, former head of the CDC and a virologist by training. I was very impressed by his testimony before the Congressional subcommittee on the origins of COVID set up right after the mid-term elections when the Republicans took back the House majority. (Again why so long? Why did this need a change of majority party to do? Shouldn’t this have been a bipartisan issue?) The record shows that he was excluded from that infamous Feb 1 teleconference. Why? I thought he was and still is a square shooter.
“Fauci’s cover-up worked extremely well. Neither Democrats nor nearly all Republicans, still, have taken any serious action to rein in any health or intelligence bureaucracy in the slightest. If Covid’s repercussions couldn’t get them to do it, or all the lost wars since Vietnam, or the FBI’s persecution of Democrats’ political opponents, one shudders to think what it might take for these flaccid-souled cuckolds to arise.”
“…flaccid-souled cuckolds…”: The best phrase I’ve read anywhere in many years!