The Tony Fauci US Senate Hearing

[iota]

*** BREAKING *** LIVE ****

this is important

FAUCI HEARING LIVE

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=P7NwGbfP__Q

Fauci is being hammered! Burr just asked about 190 million for manufacturing and to confirm that this is NOT coming out of China!! and was she (CDC) aware that manufacturing companies in the United States?


*** RAND PAUL is on right now!!!! OMG!!! ***



Others besides Rand Paul are really demanding answers making Fauci uncomfortable

what everyone is waiting for is in light of the information released by Project Veritas yesterday!

i will be updating shortly and post what Project Veritas just released as well

Watching on C-Span Live!

really happy to see actual, factual questions being asked

questions i'm certain, regular people not exposed to the information we have, would not be aware of



C-Span Live link:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?517046...id-19-variants

[iota]

Roger Marshall United States Senator from Kansas

Senator Marshall: Your current plan is NOT working!! Who is responsible for the failure

he has brought up that the factors are NOT Constitutional! and just asked her to commit instead to theraputic

to Faucci:

"You've lost your reputation! the American people don't believe the words coming out of your mouth! Maybe its time to stop ..from appearing on National TV?"

"why did you not disclose that Darpa had rejected your proposal? Will you commit to releasing the documents that have been redacted so Congress and the American public can know the truth?"

"are you saying that this is NOT gain of function research?" ...

he is NOT wanting to answer! (fauci)

next: he is bringing up disclosure by PRoject Veritas

[iota]

Project Veritas: Military Documents about Gain of Function
Contradict Fauci testimony under oath

• Military documents state:
  
  that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018 seeking funding
  
  to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses.
  
  
  The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the gain of function research moratorium.
  
  
  
• The main report regarding the EcoHealth Alliance proposal leaked on the internet a couple of months ago, it has remained unverified until now. Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.
  
  
  
• “The proposal does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GoF) research,” a direct quote from the DARPA rejection letter.
  
  
  
• Project Veritas reached out to DARPA for comment regarding the hidden documents and spoke with the Chief of Communications, Jared Adams, who said, “It doesn’t sound normal to me,” when asked about the way the documents were buried.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_zgoENmeddA

[WASHINGTON, D.C. – Jan. 10, 2022] Project Veritas has obtained startling never-before-seen documents regarding the origins of COVID-19, gain of function research, vaccines, potential treatments which have been suppressed, and the government’s effort to conceal all of this.

The documents in question stem from a report at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA, which were hidden in a top secret shared drive.

DARPA is an agency under the U.S. Department of Defense in charge of facilitating research in technology with potential military applications.

Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.

The report states that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018, seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the basis gain of function research moratorium.

According to the documents, NIAID, under the direction of Dr. Fauci, went ahead with the research in Wuhan, China and at several sites across the U.S.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly maintained, under oath, that the NIH and NAIAD have not been involved in gain of function research with the EcoHealth Alliance program. But according to the documents obtained by Project Veritas which outline why EcoHealth Alliance’s proposal was rejected, DARPA certainly classified the research as gain of function.

“The proposal does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GoF) research,” a direct quote from the DARPA rejection letter.

Major Murphy’s report goes on to detail great concern over the COVID-19 gain of function program, the concealment of documents, the suppression of potential curatives, like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, and the mRNA vaccines.

Project Veritas reached out to DARPA for comment regarding the hidden documents and spoke with the Chief of Communications, Jared Adams, who said, “It doesn’t sound normal to me,” when asked about the way the documents were shrouded in secrecy. “If something resides in a classified setting, then it should be appropriately marked,” Adams said. “I’m not at all familiar with unmarked documents that reside in a classified space, no.”

In a video breaking this story published on Monday night, Project Veritas CEO, James O’Keefe, asked a foundational question to DARPA:

“Who at DARPA made the decision to bury the original report? They could have raised red flags to the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress, which may have prevented this entire pandemic that has led to the deaths of 5.4 million people worldwide and caused much pain and suffering to many millions more.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci has not yet responded to a request for comment on this story.

Source:
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/...stimony-under/

actually, Fauci is NOW expected to be questioned regarding this, in hearing above (see opening post)

because forgive me, but the statement (which i knew to be true as of 2015) that verifies that not only was gain of function present? but that we paid for it? despite the KNOWN risks?? merits captial punishment!

i'm so grateful for Project Veritas and the obtainment AND verification of this vital documentation!

[ExomatrixTV]

• For all newcomers study also this Project Avalon Forum Thread: Fauci

BREAKING: Dr. Fauci Accuses Rand Paul Of Inciting Violence Against Him

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=f3bUBiLoPJU

[mozo33]

at the worst he will receive a slap on the wrist ... which means he will get his palm greased to take one for the team ...

[Blastolabs]

[iota]

First, i want to add info to what Blastolabs just posted above by reposting where he went into more detail here doing it this way because the image is an attachment. the same as the one in his post above. in this post i added another image

Blastolabs:

"The recent leaks from Project Veritas have LOTS of extremely relevant information assuming that they are real, which seems to be the case.

First the Intercept first broke this story months ago and the recent Veritas leak only solidifies the information first released by the Intercept.
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/...h-grant-darpa/

Key pieces of information.

Sars-cov-2 is not a "virus" but more like a man made spike protein, the documents refer to SARS-COV-2 itself as a "vaccine"

It was manufactured by the US in Wuhan as an aersolized vaccine that was released into bat caves.

The vaccines do not work because they are an artificial replication of an artificial spike protein, so provide no immunity to any virus and cause the same issues as Sars-cov-2.

The documents specifically mention that ivermectin and hydroxychlorquine work well as early treatments due to the nature of the bioweapon"

[iota]

Fauci plays the "Victim" and tosses a "Red Herring"

a "Red Herring" is a diversion tactic used expertly by those who are versed in deception. it is a maneuver designed to take the heat of of them and get the subject line off the topic and on to something else. Fauci, with help from the Democratic Chair, opted to play victimization

the outcome: He NEVER answered the questions

quite obviously because the answers would have been incriminatory

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=HzrWAwtc_Gc

it is of note, he also declined to EVER debate Kary Mullis for decades despite repeated invitations while Mullis openly and publicly declared him a charlatan

"Fauci is puppet spokesperson who will say whatever he is PAID to say"

Kary Mullis, is the Noble Prize winning bioengineer inventor of the PCR test used worldwide to determine COVID status of the virus.

Kary Mullis specifically stated that his test does NOT

"does NOT detect viruses" or is able to "tell anyone if they are sick"

HOW LONG have they KNOWN this? or more specifically, HOW LONG has Fauci KNOWN this?

since the 80's

hear him tell the story beginning @26:19

detailed post on cessation of use of PCR test as of a week ago, here

Source: https://www.brighteon.com/embed/f30b42e6-06c7-4fda-a427-3f03560f18d7

[onawah]

I am so tired of seeing Fauci seemingly squirm his way out again and again from under the questioning.
It just goes on and on, but when is he ever going to actually be convicted of anything?
I'm sure he will protest and argue for his innocence with his dying breath, but he should have been rotting in jail long before this.
It seems like Rand and his other questioners before Congress are waiting for him to finally crack, but if that's what they are depending on, I think they need a big reality check.

[iota]

Posted by onawah (here)
I am so tired of seeing Fauci seemingly squirm his way out again and again from under the questioning.
It just goes on and on, but when is he ever going to actually be convicted of anything?
I'm sure he will protest and argue for his innocence with his dying breath, but he should have been rotting in jail long before this.
It seems like Rand and his other questioners before Congress are waiting for him to finally crack, but if that's what they are depending on, I think they need a big reality check.

THE

question i have YET to hear anyone ask him?

"HOW MANY SHARES OF PFIZER OR MODERNA DO YOU OWN PERSONALLY OR BY PROXY?"

second question?

"Will you submit your financial records?"

[scotslad]

From a layman on the other side of the pond. I am trying to clarify and confirm my understanding of the evidence shown at the hearing is valid and correct.

IS IT NOW CORRECT THAT FAUCI, CATEGORICALLY KNEW THAT -

1. As confirmed by emails (31 Jan 20) shown at hearing, a lethal virus was on the loose from a lab in wuhan, China ?
2. US tax payers funded gain of function research on a virus engineered in a lab in wuhan china?
3. A research grant for it did not go through the required oversight committee?
4. According to other experts the virus looked "engineered" not consistent with Fauci's evolutionary theory?
5. There is a clear audit trail implicating him to the research work in Wuhan China which he has denied ?
6. He was the only person on behalf of the govt with 11 other global "experts" determining the message to give to american public?
7. On 4th Feb, 2020 he pubicly declared it was "not engineered" - thus lying to govt, and public?
8. He gave a TV press conference citing an article that he had editorial control before it was published to attempt to back up his claims?

What ever you think of Trump, he always appeared at logger heads with this guy, and it appears that Fauci is the master of his own demise and some would argue...
...master of mass genocide? For it appears he has lied, manipulated, defrauded, even orchestrated the killing us citizens on us soil and other civilians in many other countries.

JEEZO.

I suspect some creative young indy content curator/creator will go through all Facui's tv interviews and press conferences and edit together a compilation of all his lies, denials, misdirections and coverups?

Wot u reckon?

[Zamolxe]

Posted by iota (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
I am so tired of seeing Fauci seemingly squirm his way out again and again from under the questioning.
It just goes on and on, but when is he ever going to actually be convicted of anything?
I'm sure he will protest and argue for his innocence with his dying breath, but he should have been rotting in jail long before this.
It seems like Rand and his other questioners before Congress are waiting for him to finally crack, but if that's what they are depending on, I think they need a big reality check.

THE

question i have YET to hear anyone ask him?

"HOW MANY SHARES OF PFIZER OR MODERNA DO YOU OWN PERSONALLY OR BY PROXY?"

second question?

"Will you submit your financial records?"

I searched but can't find anywhere the answer to how many Pfizer/Moderna shares he owns. But will keep searching.
Regarding his financial records, they seem to have been public for the past 37 years
https://www.newsweek.com/what-moron-...nances-1668306

What I did find is that Rand Paul's wife bought shares in February 2020 of a company that produces COVID treatments.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/12/rand-p...irm-last-year/

Isn't that a conflict of interest? When Paul has been stating all last year that covid isn't serious and you shouldn't social distance/wear masks/vaccinate or worry at all about it? And that people should ignore prevention measures?

I mean they own stock of a company that profits when there are more covid infections/patients.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

There's no justice for schmucks, not in this paradigm, not on this side of the veil. Never has been, never will.

If ONLY that would change. I don't hold out much hope though.

[scotslad]

Fauci's lawyer getting it too...

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=pxiQeZ21SFU

[iota]

Posted by Zamolxe (here)
I searched but can't find anywhere the answer to how many Pfizer/Moderna shares he owns. But will keep searching.
Regarding his financial records, they seem to have been public for the past 37 years
https://www.newsweek.com/what-moron-...nances-1668306

What I did find is that Rand Paul's wife bought shares in February 2020 of a company that produces COVID treatments.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/12/rand-p...irm-last-year/

Isn't that a conflict of interest? When Paul has been stating all last year that covid isn't serious and you shouldn't social distance/wear masks/vaccinate or worry at all about it? And that people should ignore prevention measures?

I mean they own stock of a company that profits when there are more covid infections/patients.

i actually own a variety of stock that i purchased based on forseeable profits, none scored the potential of higher profits than ANYTHING promoted by Fauci, of course. who knows what connections may lie beneath what MY immediate goal of profit would produce. i do NOT, after all have OVER FORTY years in this specific INDUSTRY and made it MY professional career AS Fauci has .. stands to reason to impose much more stringent basis from which to judge HIM, right?

ONLY a COMPLETE idiot would spend about half of a century AS a LEADING and prominent professional AND NOT know, right? so he is either accomplice and FULLY guilty or an idiot ..

the thing is? i'm not leaning towards concluding he is merely an idiot despite the fact that he DOES try to play the part convincingly

just as the puppet presidential figure he represents doesn't hold a higher aspiration in life than how to profit from pilferation of humanity? neither does Fauci

BOTH managed to amass fortunes beyond their wildest dreams and certainly beyond the reach of the public whose trust they have deeply betrayed

and when i say LIFETIME pattern i mean LIFETIME

in the case of Fauci? he lacks originality

what i mean is? he has done thie EXACT same thing before

he has SPECIFICALLY CAUSED and profited from the MURDER of the innocent people of this land whose trust he BETRAYED


the psychological term? is PSYCOPATH. they act with reckless disregard of the consequences of their malicious actions. what term should we apply to those who support them and who repeatedly, habitually and have an OBSERVABLE pattern of coming to their defense and running iterference on their behalf?

promoting the SAME ideas that produce the SAME lethal effects surely merit eqaual credit, wouldn't you agree?

to give an example of this EXACT genocidal action perpetuated upon humanity without the teeniest remorse?

the same LACK of remorse i observe to be absent in their supporters and those who run interference on his behalf? allow me to recount a bit of history i am ABSOLUTELY positive YOU are familiar with but highly doubt many of our readers are.

NEXT: i will post Fauci's LETHAL history .. an EXACT replication of today

FAUCI: LETHAL unoriginality ~ runs the SAME con again

[iota]

"This SPIN magazine article from 1989 is a fascinating read that is today
credited with ending 'death by AZT', orchestrated by Fauci.

AIDS And The AZT Scandal: SPIN’s 1989 Feature,

‘Sins Of Omission'

INTRO:

"At the end of 1989, two years after we had started the highly controversial AIDS column in SPIN, we published an article by Celia Farber called “Sins of Omission” about the truly bad and corrupt science surrounding promoting AZT as a treatment for the syndrome of diseases.

Celia was the editor and frequent writer of the column and unearthed hard evidence of the cold-bloodedness of the AIDS establishment pushing a drug that was worse than the disease, and killed faster than the natural progression of AIDS left untreated.

AZT had been an abandoned cancer drug, discarded because of it’s fatal toxicity, resurrected in the cynical belief that AIDS patients were going to die anyway, so trying it out was sort of like playing with the house’s money. Because the drug didn’t require the usual massively expensive research and trial processes, having gone through that years earlier, it was insanely profitable for its maker,

Burroughs Wellcome. It was a tragically perfect storm of windfall profits, something to pacify AIDS activists and the media, and a convenient boom to the patent holders for HIV testing.

Celia — who should get the Congressional Medal of Honor for her brave and relentless reporting, here and throughout the ten years we ran the column — exposed the worthlessness of the drug, the shady studies and deals to suppress the negative findings, and its awful and final consequences. This piece very literally changed the media’s view of AIDS and sharpened their discerning and skeptical eye. And soon after, AZT was once again shelved, hopefully this time forever.

Many times over the years since, people have come up to me and said that reading this article saved their lives, that they either stopped taking the drug and their health improved vastly, or they never took it because of what we reported. Nothing ever made me prouder.

— Bob Guccione Jr., founder of SPIN, October 3, 2015

SPIN reported:

"On a cold January day in 1987, inside one of the brightly-lit meeting rooms of the monstrous FDA building, a panel of 11 top AIDS doctors pondered a very difficult decision. They had been asked by the FDA to consider giving lightning-quick approval to a highly toxic drug about which there was very little information. Clinically called Zidovudine, but nicknamed AZT after its components, the drug was said to have shown a dramatic effect on the survival of AIDS patients. The study that had brought the panel together had set the medical community abuzz. It was the first flicker of hope — people were dying much faster on the placebo than on the drug.

But there were tremendous concerns about the new drug. It had actually been developed a quarter of a century earlier as a cancer chemotherapy, but was shelved and forgotten because it was so toxic, very expensive to produce, and totally ineffective against cancer. Powerful, but unspecific, the drug was not selective in its cell destruction.

Drug companies around the world were sifting through hundreds of compounds in the race to find a cure, or at least a treatment, for AIDS. Burroughs Wellcome, a subsidiary of Wellcome, a British drug company, emerged as the winner. By chance, they sent the failed cancer drug, then known as Compound S, to the National Cancer Institute along with many others to see if it could slay the AIDS dragon, HIV. In the test tube at least, it did. At the meeting, there was a lot of uncertainty and discomfort with AZT. The doctors who had been consulted knew that the study was flawed and that the long-range effects were completely unknown. But the public was almost literally baying at the door. Understandably, there was immense pressure on the FDA to approve AZT, considering the climate of fear and anger all around.*

Everybody was worried about this one. To approve it, said Ellen Cooper, an FDA director, would represent a “significant and potentially dangerous departure from our normal toxicology requirements.” Just before approving the drug, one doctor on the panel, Calvin Kunin, summed up their dilemma. “On the one hand,” he said, “to deny a drug which decreases mortality in a population such as this would be inappropriate. On the other hand, to use this drug widely, for areas where efficacy has not been demonstrated, with a potentially toxic agent, might be disastrous.”

“We do not know what will happen a year from now,” said panel chairman Dr. Itzhak Brook.

“The data is just too premature, and the statistics are not really well done. The drug could actually be detrimental.”

A little later, he said he was also “struck by the fact that AZT does not stop deaths. Even those who were switched to AZT still kept dying.”

“I agree with you,” answered another panel member, “there are so many unknowns. Once a drug is approved, there is no telling how it could be abused. There’s no going back.” Burroughs Wellcome reassured the panel that they would provide detailed two-year follow-up data, and that they would not let the drug get out of its intended parameters: as a stopgap measure for very sick patients.

Dr. Brook was not won over by the promise. “If we approve it today, there will not be much data. There will be a promise of data,” he predicted, “but then the production of data will be hampered.” Brook’s vote was the only one cast against approval.

“There was not enough data, not enough follow-up,” Brook recalls. “Many of the questions we asked the company were answered by, ‘We have not analyzed the data yet,’ or, ‘We do not know.’ I felt that there was some promising data, but was very worried about the price being paid for it. The side effects were so very severe. It was chemotherapy. Patients were going to need blood transfusions, that’s very serious.”

“The committee was tending to agree with me,” says Brook" should wait a little bit, be more cautious.

But once the FDA realized we were intending to reject it, they applied political pressure.

At about 4 p.m., the head of the FDA’s Center for Drugs and Biologics asked permission to speak, which is extremely unusual. Usually they leave us alone.

But he said to us, ‘Look, if you approve the drug, we can assure you that we will work together with Burroughs Wellcome and make sure the drug is given to the right people.’

It was like saying ‘please do it.'

full article can be read here:

https://www.spin.com/2015/10/aids-an...s-of-omission/

i'm about to make a donation to Wayback for the explicit purpose of archiving this historical and monumental article so that it may be available for posterity to all seekers of Truth in the fight against propaganda and those who support it

support of specific propaganda that is lethal and can rightly be claimed as HEINEOUS crimes against society? can accurately be understood to be complicit and termed an accomplice.

and as such? bear equal responsibility and deserve equal consequences for their choice

the choice of humanity to OVERLOOK, pretend this did NOT already take place and that genocide was NOT perpetrated upon humanity by so many, and Fauci in particular?

HAS had lethal consequences. it is WHY i take the stance that i do in respect to calling a spade A SPADE. and fully supporting appropriate consequences.

were more to take similar stance? what happened once ALREADY? would NOT be happening AGAIN now



to be continued ..

please forgive me for delay i do not have the benefit of pre-selected professionally done counters to simply cut and paste.

[iota]

continued:

Spin article continued:

"Brad Stone, FDA press officer, was at that meeting. He says he doesn’t recall that particular speech, but that there is nothing “unusual” about FDA officials making such speeches at advisory meetings. “There was no political pressure,” he says. “The people in that meeting approved the drug because the data the company had produced proved it was prolonging life. Sure it was toxic, but they concluded that the benefits clearly outweighed the risks.” The meeting ended. AZT, which several members of the panel still felt uncomfortable with and feared could be a time bomb, was approved.

Flash forward: August 17, 1989. Newspapers across America banner-headlined that AZT had been “proven to be effective in HIV antibody-positive, asymptomatic, and early ARC patients,” even though one of the panel’s main concerns was that the drug should only be used in a last-case scenario for critically-ill AIDS patients, due to the drug’s extreme toxicity. Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was now pushing to expand prescription.

The FDA’s traditional concern had been thrown to the wind. Already the drug had spread to 60 countries and an estimated 20,000 people. Not only had no new evidence allayed the initial concerns of the panel, but the follow-up data, as Dr. Brook predicted, had fallen by the wayside. The beneficial effects of the drug had proven to be temporary. The toxicity, however, stayed the same.

The majority of those in the AIDS-afflicted and medical communities held the drug up as the first breakthrough on AIDS. For better or worse, AZT had been approved faster than any drug in FDA history, and activists considered it a victory. The price paid for the victory, however, was that almost all government drug trials, from then on, focused on AZT — while over 100 other promising drugs were left uninvestigated.

Burroughs Wellcome stock went through the roof when the announcement was made. At a price of $8.000 per patient per year (not including blood-work and transfusions), AZT is the most expensive drug ever marketed. Burroughs Wellcome’s gross profits for next year are estimated at $230 million. Stock market analysts predict that Burroughs Wellcome may be selling as much as $2 billion worth of AZT, under the brand name Retrovir, each year by the mid-1990s — matching Burroughs Wellcome’s total sales for all its products last year."

“Does AZT do anything? Yes, it does. But the evidence that it does something against HIV is really not there.”

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ooED6HghQaw

"AZT is the only antiretroviral drug that has received FDA approval for treatment of AIDS since the epidemic began ten years ago, and the decision to approve it was based on a single study that has long been declared invalid. The study was intended to be a “double-blind placebo-controlled study,” the only kind of study that can effectively prove whether or not a drug works. In such a study, neither patient nor doctor is supposed to know if the patient is getting the drug or a placebo. In the case of AZT, the study became unblinded on all sides, after just a few weeks.

Both sides contributed to the unblinding. It became obvious to doctors who was getting what because AZT causes such severe side effects that AIDS per se does not. Furthermore, a routine blood count known as a CMV, which clearly shows who is on the drug and who is not, wasn’t whited out in the reports. Both of these facts were accepted and confirmed by both the FDA and Burroughs Wellcome, who conducted the study.

Many of the patients who were in the trial admitted that they had analyzed their capsules to find out whether they were getting the drug. If they weren’t, some bought the drug on the underground market. Also, the pills were supposed to be indistinguishable by taste, but they were not. Although this was corrected early on, the damage was already done. There were also reports that patients were pooling pills out of solidarity to each other. The study was so severely flawed that its conclusions must be considered, by the most basic scientific standards, unproven.

The most serious problem with the original study, however, is that it was never completed. Seventeen weeks into the study, when more patients had died in the placebo group, the study was stopped, five months prematurely, for “ethical” reasons: It was considered unethical to keep giving people a placebo when the drug might keep them alive longer. Because the study was stopped short, and all subjects were put on AZT, no scientific study can ever be conducted to prove unequivocally whether AZT does prolong life.

Dr. Brook, who voted against approval, warned at the time that AZT, being the only drug available for doctors to prescribe to AIDS patients, would probably have a runaway effect. Approving it prematurely, he said, would be like “letting the genie out of the bottle.”

Brook pointed out that since the drug is a form of chemotherapy, it should only be prescribed by doctors who have experience with chemotherapeutic drugs. Because of the most severe toxic effect of AZT — cell depletion of the bone marrow —patients would need frequent blood transfusions. As it happened, AZT was rampantly prescribed as soon as it was released, way beyond its purported parameters. The worst-case scenario had come true: Doctors interviewed by the New York Times later in 1987 revealed that they were already giving AZT to healthy people who had tested positive for antibodies to HIV.

The FDA’s function is to weigh a drug’s efficacy against its potential hazards. The equation is simple and obvious: A drug must unquestionably repair more than it damages, otherwise the drug itself may cause more harm than the disease it is supposed to fight. Exactly what many doctors and scientists fear is happening with AZT."

“I personally do not prescribe AZT. I have continued to experience that people live longer who are not on it.”

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=SqhuL0q-3S0

"AZT was singled out among hundreds of compounds when Dr. Sam Broder, the head of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), found that it “inhibited HIV viral replication in vitro.” AIDS is considered a condition of immune suppression caused by the HIV virus replicating and eating its way into T-4 cells, which are essential to the immune system. HIV is a retrovirus which contains an enzyme called reverse transcriptase that converts viral RNA to DNA. AZT was thought to work by interrupting this DNA synthesis, thus stopping further replication of the virus.

While it was always known that the drug was exceedingly toxic, the first study concluded that “the risk/benefit ratio was in favor of the patient.”

In the study that won FDA approval for AZT, the one fact that swayed the panel of judges was that the AZT group outlived the placebo group by what appeared to be a landslide. The ace card of the study, the one that canceled out the issue of the drug’s enormous toxicity, was that 19 persons had died in the placebo group and only one in the AZT group. The AZT recipients were also showing a lower incidence of opportunistic infections.

While this data staggered the panel that approved the drug, other scientists insisted that it meant nothing — because it was so shabbily gathered, and because of the unblinding. Shortly after the study was stopped, the death rate accelerated in the AZT group. “There was no great difference after a while,” says Dr. Brook, “between the treated and the untreated group.”

“That study was so sloppily done that it really didn’t mean much,” says Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, a leading New York City AIDS doctor. Dr. Harvey Bialy, scientific editor of the journal Biotechnology, is stunned by the low quality of science surrounding AIDS research. When asked if he had seen any evidence of the claims made for AZT, that it “prolongs life” in AIDS patients, Bialy said, “No, I have not seen a published study that is rigorously done, analyzed, and objectively reported.”

Bialy, who is also a molecular biologist, is horrified by the widespread use of AZT, not just because it is toxic, but because, he insists, the claims its widespread use are based upon are false. “I can’t see how this drug could be doing anything other than making people very sick,” he says."

full article here: https://www.spin.com/2015/10/aids-an...s-of-omission/

[iota]

Posted by scotslad (here)
From a layman on the other side of the pond. I am trying to clarify and confirm my understanding of the evidence shown at the hearing is valid and correct.

IS IT NOW CORRECT THAT FAUCI, CATEGORICALLY KNEW THAT -

1. As confirmed by emails (31 Jan 20) shown at hearing, a lethal virus was on the loose from a lab in wuhan, China ?
2. US tax payers funded gain of function research on a virus engineered in a lab in wuhan china?
3. A research grant for it did not go through the required oversight committee?
4. According to other experts the virus looked "engineered" not consistent with Fauci's evolutionary theory?
5. There is a clear audit trail implicating him to the research work in Wuhan China which he has denied ?
6. He was the only person on behalf of the govt with 11 other global "experts" determining the message to give to american public?
7. On 4th Feb, 2020 he pubicly declared it was "not engineered" - thus lying to govt, and public?
8. He gave a TV press conference citing an article that he had editorial control before it was published to attempt to back up his claims?

What ever you think of Trump, he always appeared at logger heads with this guy, and it appears that Fauci is the master of his own demise and some would argue...
...master of mass genocide? For it appears he has lied, manipulated, defrauded, even orchestrated the killing us citizens on us soil and other civilians in many other countries.

JEEZO.

I suspect some creative young indy content curator/creator will go through all Facui's tv interviews and press conferences and edit together a compilation of all his lies, denials, misdirections and coverups?

Wot u reckon?

excellent points!!

thank you!

and worse?

they KNEW he had done this BEFORE!

here is one of his victims more than 30 yrs ago

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=oatuEnY91qk

[Anu Raman]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Wz2tZAmPkgk

[scotslad]

He is the highest-paid federal employee in the country, making $434,312 a year as head of the NIAID, while Biden's salary is $400,000. When he retires, Fauci's pension will be the largest in US history, exceeding $350,000 per year.












Dr Anthony Fauci is the highest-paid federal employee - earning more than President Joe Biden
Fauci earns $434,312 as head of the NIAID while presidents earn $400,000 annually since 2001
New disclosures show he also receives royalties exceeding $100,000 a year from medical textbooks
In 2020 he accepted a $5,000 'travel reimbursement' to virtually attend the RFK Ripple of Hope gala
Publicly available salary information for Fauci shows he earned $3.6 million from 2010 to 2019
He will make roughly $2.5 million more for the years 2020 through 2024 if he stays on through Biden's term
Fauci's wife, Christine Grady, earns $176,000 as Chief of the Department of Bioethics at the NIH
His investment accounts total $8,337,940.90, while she is worth $2,083,097.09, leaked declarations show
Fauci's records show that he was paid $13,298 to attend four galas and ceremonies - three of them virtual

Front page news today in uk.

More HERE - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

Now moved to = https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sclosures.html