Most Journalists Are Scientifically Unqualified

This is a chapter from the book forthcoming “Lies My Government Told Me,” available now for pre-order.

Why does anyone rely on reporters to interpret scientific articles? They lack the necessary training, experience, and competence to interpret scientific publications and data, a skill which typically requires decades to master.

With few exceptions, corporatized media are not able to comprehend the complexities and ambiguities inherent in scientific discussions, and so repeatedly fall back on the interpretations provided by those who are marketed as fair and accurate arbiters of truth—the U.S. Government, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, and various non-governmental organizations who have an interest in promoting vaccines (Gates’ Foundation, GAVI, CEPI, etc.) or other scientific agendas.

But these organizations have political and financial objectives of their own, and in the case of the CDC, have clearly become politicized as previously discussed. When combined with the increasing prevalence of “advocacy journalism” (which has been actively promoted and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), the result has been that the corporate media have become willing vehicles for distribution of biased interpretations promoted by authority figures presented to the public as credible sources, but who actually practice the pseudo-priesthood of Scientism masquerading as science.

As a consequence, corporate legacy media have largely become distributors and enforcers of government-approved (and composed) narratives and articles rather than objective and impartial investigators and arbiters of truth. This is particularly true of the perverse branch of scientific journalism which has ascended to prominence during the COVID crisis, the factchecker organizations (some of which are sponsored by Thompson-Reuters). But how does this propaganda ecosystem work, and what can be done about it?

To a large extent science and scientists are granted an exalted position in western society due to an implied social contract. Western governments provide them support and society grants elevated social status in exchange for valuable services. These services include performing their trade (doing “science”) and teaching others both their craft and findings. Government subsidized (non-corporate) scientists and science are trained and funded by citizens (through their taxes) to practice their craft objectively in a variety of technical domains including medicine and public health on behalf of the citizenry. This arrangement stands in contrast to corporate-funded scientists, who work to advance the interests of their employers, but who have often also been trained at taxpayers expense.

The social contract between scientists and general citizenry assumes that those scientists employed via government funding act in a manner which is free of both political partisanship and external influence from corporations and non-governmental advocacy organizations. This social contract is woven throughout federal government hiring and employment policies concerning the civilian science corps. These policies explicitly forbid these employees from engaging in partisan political activities while serving in an official capacity, and forbid conflicts of interest stemming from influence of non-governmental entities, whether for- or not-for-profit.

When these terms and conditions are not upheld, the public justifiably objects to the breach of contract. This is why employees of the civilian scientific corps are protected from employment termination for political purposes by the executive branch, even though the Office of the President is tasked with managing the scientific enterprise.

Failure of the civilian scientific corps to maintain personal and scientific integrity and/or political objectivity appears to have become a chronic condition, as evidenced by the politicization of the CDC. When politicization of scientific data and interpretation results in multiple policy decisions which fail to protect the interests of the general public, the public loses faith in both the scientists and the discipline which they purport to practice. This is particularly true when the breach of social contract is seen as advancing corporate or partisan interests.

There is an organizational paradox which enables immense power to be amassed by those who have risen to the top of the civilian scientific corps. These bureaucrats have almost unprecedented access to the public purse, are technically employed by the executive, but are also almost completely protected from accountability by the executive branch of government that is tasked with managing them—and therefore these bureaucrats are unaccountable to those who actually pay the bills for their activities (taxpayers). To the extent these administrators are able to be held to task, this accountability flows indirectly from congress.

Their organizational budgets can be either enhanced or cut during following fiscal years, but otherwise they are largely protected from corrective action including termination of employment absent some major moral transgression. In a Machiavellian sense, these senior administrators function as The Prince, each federal health institute functions as a semi-autonomous city-state, and the administrators and their respective courtiers act accordingly.

To complete this analogy, congress functions similar the Vatican during the 16th century, with each Prince vying for funding and power by currying favor with influential archbishops. As validation for this analogy, we have the theater observed on C-SPAN each time a minority congressperson or senator queries an indignant scientific administrator, such as has been repeatedly observed with Anthony Faucis’ haughty exchanges during congressional testimony.

Into this dysfunctional and unaccountable organizational structure comes the corporate media, which has become distorted and weaponized into a propaganda machine under the influence of multiple factors. The most overt driver of this cooptation has been that the Biden administration, through the CDC, made direct payments to nearly all major corporate media outlets while deploying a $1 billion taxpayer-funded outreach campaign designed to push only positive coverage about COVID-19 vaccines and to censor any negative coverage.

With this action, the corporate media behemoth has functionally become a fusion of corporate and state-sponsored media—a public-private partnership meeting the definition of corporatist fascism.

According to the Associated Press, despite the 2013 legislation that changed the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (also known as the Smith-Mundt Act) to allow some materials created by the U.S. Agency for Global Media to be disseminated in the United States, under the new law it is still unlawful for government-funded media to create programming and market their content to U.S. audiences. Nevertheless, this is precisely what was done in the case of the COVID-19 vaccine campaign.

Secondly there has long been involvement of the intelligence community in domestic U.S. media. Operation Mockingbird is among the most well-known of the incursions of the CIA into U.S. media, but the extensive and longstanding influence of the spy agency in crafting domestic propaganda has been well documented by journalist Carl Bernstein in his article “The CIA and the Media.” Among the corporate media outlets identified by Bernstein as having fallen under CIA influence is the New York Times, which is intriguing in light of the precise knowledge of (former) CIA officer Michael Callahan’s CIA employment history inadvertently revealed by NYT reporter Davey Alba while interviewing me.

For further context, while speaking to me by cell phone early in 2020, Callahan specifically denied that there was any indication that the original SARS-CoV-2 virus sequence showed any evidence of intentional genetic modification, stating “my guys have gone over that sequence in detail and there is no indication that it was genetically modified.”

In retrospect, it is now clear that was propaganda—or speaking more plainly, an intentional lie. Disinformation. Many insiders now believe that the five eyes spy alliance has been exploited during the COVID crisis to enable reciprocal domestic propaganda activities by participant states against the citizens of other member states which otherwise forbid their own intelligence agencies from domestic propaganda activities.

Consistent with this is the aggressive editing of my own Wikipedia page (discussed by sardonic humorist “whatsherface”) by an unusually prolific editor/pseudonym (Philip Cross) who apparently works for British intelligence services. Based on the totality of evidence, it is reasonable to infer that the U.S. intelligence community has remained actively engaged in crafting and defending the COVID crisis narrative, either through direct influence with corporate media and specific reporters, and/or indirectly via reciprocal five eyes relationships.

In addition to the above, there are many specific examples of Dr. Anthony Fauci and colleagues acting to exploit corporate media to advance their bureaucratic and public policy agendas. Weaponization of his relationship with the media by Dr. Fauci (during the time when AIDS was a major narrative) is well documented in the book “The Real Anthony Fauci.” During the COVID crisis, email exchanges using government servers and addresses (obtained by independent investigator Phillip Magness under Freedom of Information Request) concerning the Great Barrington Declaration demonstrate that Dr. Fauci continues to exert considerable influence over both lay and scientific press.

How does this work? How is Dr. Fauci able to influence corporate media and its reporters to compose and print articles about scientific and political issues which comport with his interests and perspectives as well as those of the Institute (NIAID) which he directs? The most straightforward of the ways that he influences corporate media and its reporters is through his proven ability to actually have reporters fired who write or broadcast stories which he does not like.

In “The Real Anthony Fauci,” Robert F Kennedy Jr. documents how Dr. Fauci had journalists that he disapproved of fired. More recently, Forbes fired journalist Adam Andrzejewski for revealing previously undisclosed details regarding Anthony Fauci’s personal finances. Fauci also repeatedly attacked Fox journalist Laura Logan for likening him to Joseph Mengele, which she had correctly identified as a characterization widely shared throughout the world. Then there are the subtler reciprocal relationships that Dr. Fauci and his NIAID Office of Communications and Government Relations (OCGR) cultivate.

The NIAID OGCR is organized into five different offices; the Director’s Office, the Legislative Affairs and Correspondence Management Branch, the New Media and Web Policy Branch, the News and Science Writing Branch, and the Communications Services Branch. A search of the HHS employee directory reveals that OGCR employs 59 full time employees, eight of whom staff the News and Science Writing Branch, and 32 of whom work for the New Media and Web Policy Branch. In contrast, only eight employees staff the Legislative Affairs and Correspondence Management Branch. It is important to recognize that NIAID is only one branch of the NIH, and these employees are dedicated to supporting the mission of that one single branch and its director, Dr. Fauci.

There is also a quid-pro-quo relationship between reporters and influential organizations or individuals. This relationship was nicely illustrated in the movie “The Big Short” that documented the corruption which lead to the “Great Recession” of 2007–2009. The movie included scenes involving investors and hedge fund managers confronting financial industry journalists and bond ratings agency employees. In both cases, individuals whose structural role is typically seen as serving as a barrier to corruption and malfeasance were coopted by the need to maintain good relationships with the industry and players which they were tasked with overseeing.

The same holds true in the case of the federal bureaucracy. Basically, if a journalist wishes to be granted timely access to press releases, OGCR-drafted content favorable to Dr. Fauci and the NIAID, or other insider information, he or she must not write critical or unflattering stories. The NIAID OGCR operation is much larger than most corporate media newsrooms, who have struggled to maintain staffing in the face of declining reader and viewership, and so maintaining good relations while avoiding retaliation is critical for any reporter that works a health and science beat.

A recent example involving the immunology, structural biology and virology associated with evolution of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron escape mutants is useful for illustrating the problem of reporters interpreting complex scientific information. A group of Chinese scientists have recently had a tour-de-force study accepted for publication by the high status scientific journal “Nature.” On June 17, 2022 an unedited pre-print of a peer-reviewed article with the rather dry title “BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 escape antibodies elicited by Omicron infection” was posted by Nature.

As an experienced reviewer with a reasonable level of understanding of the subject matter, I found this article to be one of the more challenging papers to read that I have encountered during the COVID crisis. Rich granular detail concerning the recent evolution of Omicron spike protein sequence and specifically the receptor binding domain (focused on BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5) is provided, and the Chinese team uses an array of the latest technologies to generate a mountain of data which are presented to the reader as a stream of condensed information with minimal supporting text (in part due to the word length restrictions inherent in publication in Nature).

This is a tough read, even for me, but clearly represents an amazing advance in understanding of the molecular evolution which is happening as Omicron continues to circulate in human populations who have received vaccines which fail to prevent infection, replication and spread of the virus. There are even data which may support some of the hypotheses of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche concerning the probability of shifts in glycosylation patterns as part of the antibody evasion evolution of the virus continues, shifts which he predicts may lead to markedly enhanced disease as well as immunological evasion.

This highly technical article was reviewed and presented to the world by Thomson-Reuters journalist Nancy Lapid, who writes a column titled “Future of Health.” Her body of work, largely focused on the COVID crisis, now includes 153 such articles. She is a journalist, not a scientist. By way of full transparency, Thomson-Reuters has a variety of organizational leadership ties with Pfizer, a fact never disclosed in any of these articles. Just to illustrate the point:

Jim Smith, president and chief executive officer, Thompson-Reuters:

“Jim began his career as a journalist and rose through the ranks at Thomson Newspapers to become responsible for operations in North America. He then led a number of professional publishing businesses serving the legal, regulatory and academic markets. He served as global head of Human Resources before becoming Chief Operating Officer of The Thomson Corporation. Following the acquisition of Reuters in 2008, Jim ran the Professional division of the combined company. He was named Chief Executive Officer in January 2012. Jim is a director of Pfizer, Inc. He also serves on the board of the World Economic Forum’s Partnering Against Corruption Initiative and is a member of the Forum’s International Business Council, as well as on the International Advisory Boards of British American Business and the Atlantic Council.”

Nancy Lapids’ article covering this technically challenging Nature article is titled “Early Omicron infection unlikely to protect against current variants,” which is a gross misrepresentation of the findings of the paper, which provides no analysis of either clinical protection or of clinical samples obtained from a control set of patients who have been infected but not vaccinated. The Reuters coverage goes on to say:

“People infected with the earliest version of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus, first identified in South Africa in November, may be vulnerable to reinfection with later versions of Omicron even if they have been vaccinated and boosted, new findings suggest.”

This is a misrepresentation of the actual findings of this team. To take a page from the current vernacular, it is either “misinformation” (meaning an unintentional false representation of scientific data and interpretation), or “disinformation” (meaning an intentional false representation designed to influence thought or policy in some way). To complete the triad, “malinformation” is defined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as information which may be either true or false, but which undermines public faith in the U.S. government. Propagation of any of these three types of information have been deemed grounds for accusations of domestic terrorism by DHS.

As I try to avoid drawing conclusions about people’s intentions (due to my inability to read their thoughts), I cannot distinguish between these different labels in the case of the (clearly false) interpretation which Thompson-Reuters has published with Nancy Lapid’s story.

What the actual manuscript describes is detailed characterization of the evolution (including precise structural mapping of specific domain clusters of antibody-Spike protein interactions) of the new Omicron variants in relationship to both marketed and newly developed monoclonal antibodies as well as “neutralizing” naturally occurring antibodies obtained from patients who have either been vaccinated with the Chinese inactivated viral vaccine called “Coronavac” or “ZF2001” (an adjuvanted protein subunit vaccine), or were previously infected with an earlier variant of SARS-CoV-2 (or the original SARS!) and then vaccinated with “Coronavac” or “ZF2001” or both (Coronavac x2 first, then ZF2001 boost). The authors describe this clearly and precisely. This research does not involve any of the vaccines available in the United States, a key fact which Nancy Lapid fails to disclose. Whole inactivated or adjuvanted subunit vaccines are very different from mRNA or rAdV vectored genetic vaccines.

Important things to understand in reading the paper is that the preponderance of information demonstrates that optimal acquired protection from infection by SARS-CoV-2 (via natural infection and/or vaccination) is not only provided by antibodies, but also requires a cellular (T-cell) adaptive immune response. This paper is only looking at one limited aspect of the rich and complex interactions between the innate and adaptive immune system in human beings and infection by the virus SARS-CoV-2 (and also addresses previously SARS-infected individuals who have been boosted with “Coronavax”).

Even in the abstract, the authors are quite precise in their summary of this fact that they are not assessing “protection,” clearly demonstrating the inherent bias of the Nancy Lapid/Thompson-Reuters story. They are assessing and drawing conclusions regarding neutralization evasion of the currently circulating escape mutants regarding antibodies from patients as well as various monoclonal antibody preparations.

“Here, coupled with Spike structural comparisons, we show that BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 exhibit comparable ACE2-binding affinities to BA.2. Importantly, BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 display stronger neutralization evasion than BA.2 against the plasma from 3-dose vaccination and, most strikingly, from post-vaccination BA.1 infections.”

This brief example illustrates the problem with allowing untutored and unqualified reporters who reflect the biases of corporate media (and government) to serve as interpreters and arbiters of scientific truth. With few exceptions, they are just not qualified to perform this task. But both the general reader as well as government policy makers rely on corporate media to perform this task accurately and fairly.

Accurate presentation of scientific findings is necessary if the public as well as their elected representatives are to make both sound policy and medically informed personal choice decisions that are grounded in accurate and balanced quantifiable information obtained by best scientific practices. This is what they are paying for, and they deserve to have it delivered to them.

If the public and policy makers wish to continue to rely on corporate legacy press to help them to understand complicated scientific and technical issues, “advocacy journalism” reporters need to get back in their lane and leave scientific and medical interpretation to experienced professionals.

There are plenty of qualified scientists capable of reading and accurately communicating key findings from even such highly technical manuscripts as this recent Nature article. The corporate press has the resources necessary to engage such specialists, and to be able to integrate and present multiple points of view which may include the perspective of the NIAID OGCR. But as is required for all peer reviewed academic manuscripts in the modern era, the sources (and underlying data) should be disclosed in a transparent way, and potential conflicts of interest of those sources should also be disclosed.

In the interim, corporate media and their reporters should stop trying to spin that which they do not even comprehend.

From the Brownstone Institute

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.


Dr. Robert W. Malone is a physician and biochemist whose early work with mRNA vaccines was pioneering. Malone’s Substack is

Source link

Fauci Refuses to ‘Stop Funding Chinese’ Research With US Tax Dollars

‘China is the drug he just can’t quit’: GOP Senator slams NIAD head’s remarks

Dr. Anthony Fauci said he was unable to commit to stop federal funding from going to Chinese scientific research, despite the U.S. intelligence community assessing the regime as America’s top adversary.

Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), made the remarks while appearing virtually at the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee hearing on June 16, during an exchange with Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas).

“The NIH is still funding research in China, at least $8 million since 2020. In the Intelligence Community’s 2022 Annual Threat Assessment, the Chinese Communist Party is presented as one of the top threats to the United States, along with Russia, Iran, Syria, and North Korea. To my knowledge, only China is receiving U.S. research dollars,” said the senator during the hearing. “When will you as director of NIAID stop funding research in China?”

Since 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded a total of $8.3 million in grants to the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention and its division National Center for AIDS/STD Control and Prevention, along with five top public universities in mainland China and Hong Kong, according to the NIH website.

Although this amount doesn’t capture dollars later funneled to a Chinese institution through a U.S.-based organization, such as New York-based EcoHealth Alliance, which had partnered with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to perform coronavirus-related experiments that some experts said fit the definition of gain-of-function research, that is, experiments that increase the pathogenicity or transmissibility of a virus.

Fauci, in response to Marshall’s question, said that the U.S. federal agencies “had very productive peer-reviewed highly regarded research projects with our Chinese colleagues that have led to some major advances in biomedical research.”

“So I don’t think I’d be able to tell you that we are going to stop funding Chinese,” Fauci said.

“We obviously need to be careful and make sure that when we do fund them we have the proper peer review and we go through all the established guidelines,” he continued, adding that “grants that go to foreign countries, including China, have State Department clearance.”

“Dr. Fauci’s remarks prove that China is the drug he just can’t quit,” Marshall later told The Epoch Times about the NIAID head’s response.

screenshot senator marshall
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) questions Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Senate panel on June 16, 2022. (The Epoch Times via the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee)

“Dr. Fauci told the truth for once after years of repeated dishonesty that has eroded Americans’ trust in our public health institutions. In the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, our government should know it’s dangerous and wrong to continue funding research projects supported by the Chinese Communist Party.”

The senator, at the hearing, followed up by asking Fauci if he agrees that the American public lacks records and studies from EcoHealth Alliance’s research.

Fauci’s answer was evasive.

“We have access to an extraordinary amount of information that has gone there,” he said, arguing that the publicly available information in the scientific journals is sufficient.

“Obviously none of us know everything that’s going on in China but if the question at hand is the rather small … peer-reviewed high-priority grant that was given from Eco[Health] to China in a sub-award we have a lot of good information that’s in the publishing.”

The NIH gave a total of $3.1 million grant to EcoHealth over the five years from 2014 to 2019, a fifth of that, $599,000, went to the Wuhan lab, in part for identifying and altering bat coronaviruses deemed likely to infect humans, documents obtained by The Intercept show.

Fauci earlier this week tested positive for COVID-19 and joined the Thursday Senate hearing remotely. His response to Marshall omitted reference EcoHealth’s lack of disclosure over some of its research activities, which would have prompted an NIH review over biosafety measures.

Epoch Times Photo
Epoch Times Photo
In this image from video, Dr. Anthony Fauci testifies to a Senate panel via remotelink on June 16, 2022. (The Epoch Times via the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee)


In one experiment at the Wuhan facility, funded by NIH via EcoHealth, mice infected with a modified version of the original bat coronavirus “became sicker than those infected” with the original version, an “unexpected result” that was not “something that the researchers set out to do,” Lawrence Tabak, the principal deputy director at the NIH, told lawmakers last October.

He said EcoHealth had violated grant terms by failing to promptly notify the NIH about the finding.

Fauci, at the Thursday hearing, also told Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) that he believes the outbreak of the virus “is very, very likely a jump in species from an animal host,” and less likely to be the result of a lab leak.

“I believe it’s essential to have cooperation and collaboration with the Chinese,” he said when Braun asked him whether he thinks Beijing will cooperate with him to “get to the thorough bottom of” COVID-19 origins.

Eva Fu


Eva Fu is a New York-based writer for The Epoch Times focusing on U.S.-China relations, religious freedom, and human rights. Contact Eva at

Source link

Conservatives Welcome Fauci’s Vow to Quit if Trump Elected

When Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Chief Medical Adviser to President Joe Biden, said on Sunday he’d leave the job if it meant working for a second term of President Donald Trump, a lot of prominent conservatives said that was A-OK with them.

Fauci was interviewed Sunday on CNN by Jim Acosta, who asked him, “If Trump were to return to the White House as president, and COVID is still a threat or there is some other public health emergency, would you have confidence in his ability … to deal with a pandemic of this nature? Would you want to stay on in your post?”

“Well, no to the second question,” Fauci responded. “The first question, if you look at the history of what the response was during the administration, I think at best you could say it wasn’t optimal. And I think just history will speak for itself. I don’t need to make any further comment about that, it’s not productive.”

Fauci was the early face of the pandemic response during Trump’s administration, but the two frequently clashed over messaging, and Trump eventually took over press briefings himself with Fauci becoming unseen. Trump once called him an “idiot” and publicly considered firing him.

Many on the right accuse Fauci of flip-flopping on messaging about masks during the pandemic and downplaying the possibility that COVID may have originated in China’s Wuhan lab.

Conservatives were quick to welcome Fauci’s words, according to the Daily Mail, which published a roundup of their tweets.

“Best possible endorsement for Trump in 2024,” Sean Davis, CEO of The Federalist, tweeted. “Good riddance to this corrupt, evil little elf.”

Political pundit Stephen L. Miller sarcastically chimed in, “Stop encouraging Trump to run again.”

“Sayonara, Fauci,”Students for Trump founder Ryan Fournier said.

“The amount of arrogance stuffed into this tiny person is staggering. He won’t serve under Trump because he’ll be fired 30 seconds after the inauguration. Plus, he’ll be 83. Just slink away, little man,” said Boston radio host Gerry Callahan.

“These new Trump 2024 ads really hit,” tweeted Washington state congressional candidate Joe Kent.

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link

Fauci Does Not Plan to Work for Trump Again

White House Chief Medical Adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci said Sunday that, should former President Donald Trump win the presidential election in 2024, he would not work in the White House again.

“No” was the  answer Fauci gave to CNN host Jim Acosta, adding, “If you look at the history of what the response was during the administration, I think, you know, at best, you can say it wasn’t optimal. History will speak for itself about that.”

Although he has not formally announced a 2024 bid, Trump has suggested frequently that he plans to run for president again.

Fauci has continued his work into the Biden administration, saying in January 2021 that it was “liberating” to work with President Joe Biden.

“I can tell you I take no pleasure at all in being in a situation of contradicting the president, so it was really something that you didn’t feel you could actually say something and there wouldn’t be any repercussions about it. The idea that you can get up here and talk about what you know, what the evidence and science is, and know that’s it — let the science speak — it is somewhat of a liberating feeling,” Fauci said at a White House press briefing at the time.

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link

Jeffrey Tucker: US May Not Know Alternatives to Lockdown, China’s Zero-COVID Strategy

What has the lockdown situation in Shanghai taught the rest of the world? Is the method and invention by a totalitarian regime, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), proving to be correct? Has public health gone too far going into politics? We discuss these questions with Jeffrey Tucker, founder and president of the Brownstone Institute, as well as his view on why China invented the lockdown for COVID-19 and why the world adopted the method. Plus, we discuss the CCP regime and it’s nature amid the humanitarian crisis in China.
Click the “Save” button below the video to access it later on “My List.”

Source link

Fauci: US Likely to Determine Next COVID Booster Type By Summer

Scientists and health officials by this summer should have a better sense of what type of COVID-19 booster will be needed to deal with the next phase of the pandemic and when it should be administered, top U.S. infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci said on Friday.

The National Institutes of Health, where Fauci serves as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is conducting clinical studies to determine if the next COVID booster should be specific to a particular variant of the coronavirus or designed to address more than one variant, known as a bivalent vaccine, ahead of the fall season, he said.

“We likely will know over the summer when we’ll be able to, and what we’ll be able to, boost people with,” Fauci said at a virtual event hosted by the National Press Club in Washington.

Fauci also said health experts are looking carefully into anecdotal reports that some people after taking a five-day course Pfizer Inc’s oral antiviral treatment Paxlovid have tested positive for the coronavirus or experienced mild symptoms.

The government has been encouraging people at risk of severe disease who experience COVID symptoms to get a Paxlovid prescription as soon as possible.

While health officials look into whether a viral rebound after Paxlovid is a real phenomenon, Fauci said: “The drug is still clearly very effective in preventing you from progressing to requiring hospitalization, the 90% efficacy seems to be holding strong.”

Fauci also said it will be very difficult for the U.S. population to reach classical herd immunity against this virus due to several factors. They include its ability to evolve and mutate into diverse variants, waning immunity from infections and vaccines, and an anti-vaccine movement that has kept millions of people from seeking protection.

It is unlikely the United States will ever eliminate COVID-19, he said, but the nation should strive to control the virus and get out of the acute pandemic phase.

“When I said we are no longer in that fulminant acute phase, that does not mean that the pandemic is over,” he reiterated. “By no means is it over. We still are experiencing a global pandemic.” 

© 2022 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

Source link

Biden to Skip Part of Correspondents’ Dinner to Limit COVID Risk

The White House announced on Wednesday that President Joe Biden would take added precautions while attending its Correspondents’ Association Dinner this weekend at the Washington Hilton, including skipping the dining portion of the event, The Hill reported.

The president might even wear a mask throughout the speaker session, which will feature comedian Trevor Noah and recognize journalists covering the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

”He’s made the decision he wants to attend, in a safe way, the White House correspondents’ dinner to showcase his support for the free press, for the work of all of you, for the work of your colleagues around the world to not only share accurate information about COVID but also report on the war in Ukraine and all of the work that happens every single day,” White House press secretary Psaki told reporters in a press briefing.

”That does stand in stark contrast to his predecessor, who not only questioned the legitimacy of the press on a nearly daily basis but also never attended the dinner, I don’t believe,” Psaki continued. ”So [Biden] felt that was important and made a risk assessment to do that in consultation with his doctors and healthcare team.”

The 2022 dinner is the first time it will be held since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic two years ago, with guests required to be vaccinated and have a proven negative test to enter.

News of Biden’s decision to attend but skip the meal portion comes after Dr. Anthony Fauci, White House chief medical adviser, told The New York Times he would not attended due to an ”individual assessment” of his ”personal risk.”

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link

Fauci Calls Mask Mandate Cancellation on Public Transit ‘Unfortunate’

Dr. Anthony Fauci wasn’t happy with a Florida federal judge’s landmark ruling from earlier this week, characterizing the cancellation of the Biden administration’s national mask mandate for public transportation as “unfortunate.”

Fauci, the chief White House medical adviser, who has been in the public eye for more than two years because of the COVID-19 pandemic, said District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle’s ruling “superseded the authority of the CDC.”

In his response, however, Fauci also didn’t account for how Americans now have tremendous access to COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. 

Or how the Biden administration still wants to repeal the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Title 42 health order at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Instead, Fauci seemingly wanted to preserve the status quo, even though COVID infections in the United States have precipitously declined in recent weeks.

“Well, I follow the CDC guidelines. And the CDC wanted to extend the mandate for the 15-day period beyond April 18, up to May 3. The reason they wanted to do that was they wanted to see what the pattern of infection is during this bit of a surge we’re seeing,” Fauci said in an interview with USA Today.

On Wednesday, the CDC instructed the Department of Justice to appeal the Trump-appointed judge’s cancellation ruling, ending a mask mandate that had coincided with Joe Biden’s presidency. 

“To protect CDC’s public health authority beyond the ongoing assessment announced last week, CDC has asked DOJ to proceed with an appeal in Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc., et al., v. Biden, et al,” the CDC said in a statement, while adding the previous mask mandate was “necessary for the public health.”

The health agency added: “CDC will continue to monitor public health conditions to determine whether such an order remains necessary. CDC believes this is a lawful order, well within CDC’s legal authority to protect public health.”

This week, social media posters and TV viewers were treated to a number of videos and still photos, chronicling the precise moment in which various airlines dropped mask mandates for airplane travel — some of which occurred midflight.

The photos and videos showed a large number of maskless plane passengers, celebrating their newfound freedom of choice after nearly two years of flying with the mask obligation.

Of course, within this new freedom of choice, plane passengers can continue to weear a mask on flights. 

This week, White House press secretary Jen Psaki had a tense session with the media, when pressed on the potential hypocrisy of rescinding Title 42 at the southern border, but also wanting to keep public transportation mask mandates in check.

There’s also the reality of states abandoning mask mandates indoors, en masse.

Psaki shot back by saying, “I’m not a doctor, you’re not a doctor, that I’m aware of,” when addressing a question from Fox News reporter.

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link

Lara Logan ‘Definitely Pushed Out’ at Fox After Fauci Comments

Reporter Lara Logan said she was forced out of Fox News and its streaming service after publicly criticizing Anthony Fauci.

“Lara Logan Has No Agenda,” a show streamed on Fox Nation, was dropped, and the former CBS News correspondent has not appeared as a Fox News guest since making her comments about Fauci late last year.

“I was definitely pushed out,” Logan told The Eric Metaxas Radio Show. “I mean, there is no doubt about that. They don’t want independent thinkers. They don’t want people who follow the facts regardless of the politics.”

During a Fox News interview in November, Logan criticized Fauci for his policies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“What you see on Dr. Fauci, this is what people say to me, that he doesn’t represent science to them. He represents Josef Mengele … the Nazi doctor who did experiments on Jews during the Second World War and in the concentration camps,” Logan said at the time.

Logan was blasted by some Jewish groups for her comments, and she was dropped by talent agency UTA, according to the group.

“I don’t really know,” she told the Daily Beast about her status at Fox. “I’m not on their payroll … so I, you know, I’m not in communication with them.”

Logan told Metaxas that mainstream media stories about her also have hurt her career.

“If they Google you, and they see a Washington Post or New York Times hit piece on you, well then they don’t want anything to do with you, right?” she told Metaxas. “Oh well, we can’t hire you for our event, or We can’t employ you, or whatever else.”

Logan, a native of South Africa, told the radio host that, “I don’t belong to any party.”

“I don’t belong to any one side,” she told Metaxas. “I really don’t care about media organizations who for years have reported false stories. Why should I care what they have to say?”

Logan was among the speakers at Defeat the Mandates protest in Washington, D.C., in late January.

© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Source link

Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke

Dr. Anthony Fauci was told in a secret teleconference that the COVID-19 virus very likely leaked from a laboratory in China. After the teleconference, however, Fauci and his associates began pushing an alternate narrative, instead claiming the virus was of natural origin, and the researchers who informed him and others of the likely lab leak also changed their narrative to align with Fauci, despite their own documented statements saying otherwise. This is among the many revelations in newly redacted emails on Fauci and his associates that give evidence not just of the possible deception of the public during a pandemic, but also of a possible coverup. To learn more about this, we sat down for an interview with Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke, hosts of Truth Over News.

Subscribe to the new Crossroads newsletter and stay up-to-date!

Follow EpochTV on social media:



Source link