Quote: "An “in-kind” political donation is defined as a non-cash gift made to a nonprofit organization, including goods, services, time, and expertise. I submit that, under this definition, Dr. Anthony Fauci is quite possibly the largest in-kind donor to the Democratic National Committee.
Fauci, however, has been clever in the manner of his assistance to the Democrats. After all, when you criticize the good doctor, he reminds you that you are criticizing science itself. Although Fauci has repeatedly insisted that he is not a political person, the evidence clearly indicates otherwise. In 2020, he strongly opposed the Trump campaign’s use of a video clip showing him praising the administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic; yet he allowed the DNC to use his photo in political ads online without a word of protest or opposition. In fact, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (a fundraising organization for Democrat congressional candidates) ran online ads reading “Thank you, Dr. Fauci!”
But what were they thanking him for? In January 2021, I argued that they were slyly thanking him for his push for a near-total shutdown of the American economy in 2020 (which coincidentally happened to be a presidential election year).
American Thinker was among the first to publish pieces that pointed this out. Other news/opinion outlets followed with similar stories. Here’s one from Just the News and another one from Axios. Oh, well. I suppose imitation of American Thinker pieces is the sincerest of flattery.
Moving on to 2022, you’ll find that the DCCC is continuing to run the same “Thank you, Dr. Fauci” online ad that was run in the 2020 presidential election cycle. Perhaps they hope that Fauci could pull some more lockdown shenanigans to enable another mail-in election. Unfortunately for them, time is now short. The Monkeypox “emergency” has fizzled, as has the latest COVID variant BA.2.75. Despite the attempted alarmism in Nature’s online headline, the subtext admits that “hospitalization rates are low so far.”
Marc Elias must be disappointed. In 2020, Elias was the election law attorney who effectively used Fauci’s recommended lockdown to persuade elected officials in several swing states to mail out unrequested ballots to all registered voters. Fortunately for our democracy, these election-rigging shenanigans aren’t panning out for Democrats in 2022. Voters who were alarmed by the shady tactics that the Dems used to circumvent voting rules in 2020 are far more vigilant. The ballot drop boxes that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg funded in the last election will be heavily monitored, and several states have severely restricted their use.
Conservative voters have, in effect, said, “Fool us once, shame on you; Fool us twice, shame on us.” In the words of The Who’s classic song, let’s hope we won’t get fooled again." Is Dr. Fauci the DNC’s largest in-kind donor? - American Thinker
This should disturb everyone. Quote: "US health officials have given a hugely controversial research organization another $650,000 grant to experiment on Covid-like viruses – despite fears similar risky work may have actually sparked the pandemic. EcoHealth Alliance, run by British zoologist Peter Daszak, funded studies in Wuhan – the Chinese city where the pandemic began – on manipulated coronaviruses.
Such research, known as ‘gain of function’, can see viruses deliberately engineered to become more dangerous to humans. EcoHealth Alliance’s five-year experiment will investigate ‘the potential for future bat coronavirus emergence’ in Asia, with scientists set to trawl caves in Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam in the hunt to prevent another viral crisis.The grant was awarded last month by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is still ran by Dr Anthony Fauci.
Dr Fauci is known to be close to Dr Daszak, who thanked the American Government’s departing chief medical adviser for downplaying theories that Covid may have been created in a lab. EcoHealth Alliance is said to have received $60million (£53.5m) in federal cash over the past decade. Some of this money was funneled straight to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The justification for the grant says that previous research in this field ‘identifies the border region of Southern China, Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam as a high risk for future emergence of novel coronaviruses and the potential site where SARS-CoV-2 first ‘spilled over’ from bats to people’.
The research will also include testing communities that live in close proximity to wildlife in south east Asia for coronaviruses. According to the NIH’s website, the research will include supplying ‘viral sequences and isolates for use in vaccine development’. The main aim of the research is described as conducting ‘community-based surveys and biological sampling of people frequently exposed to wildlife in Myanmar, Laos, and Vietnam, to find serological evidence of spillover’.
The other primary aim will include ‘sampling and PCR screening of bats and other wildlife at community surveillance sites’. The new research may ‘also provide data on wildlife reservoirs and community spillover events of relevance to the origin of COVID-19,’ according to a section of the NIH report.
Another section reads: ‘Finally, we will rapidly supply viral sequences and isolates for use in vaccine and therapeutic development.’ The long-term goal of projects such as this one is to help aid global preparedness in case of another global pandemic, the NIH said. Further details of British researcher Daszak’s role in facilitating risky coronavirus research in China were revealed in a report back in April. They outlined how his EcoHealth Alliance raked in millions in federal grants.
Daszak’s group, which bizarrely evolved from a save-the-manatees non-profit to a top champion of viral gain-of-function research as it chased federal funding, has long been at the center of questions about the origins of Covid.
The lengthy report that was published in Vanity Fair, based on dozens of interviews and more than 100,000 leaked internal documents, detailed how EcoHealth operated in a world of ‘murky grant agreements, flimsy oversight, and the pursuit of government funds for scientific advancement, in part by pitching research of steeply escalating risk’.
The report did not offer conclusive evidence as to whether Covid leaked from the Wuhan lab that worked closely with EcoHealth, or was transmitted to humans by an animal in a ‘natural spillover’ event, as Daszak has long insisted. But it does outline the lengths to which Daszak – and Dr Fauci, whose agency helped fund his research – went to try to cast doubt on the lab-origin theory and downplay the potential role of risky research that EcoHealth supported in Wuhan." Fauci’s Pal is Given Another US Grant to Investigate COVID -- Despite Fears His Initial Work at Wuhan Lab Triggered Pandemic (conservativefighters.co)
No comments:
Post a Comment