Biden CDC and Fauchi Are Not to Be Trusted

Written by on September 15, 2021


Biden CDC and Fauchi Are Not to Be Trusted

 

 

While we are told to “trust the science” how much can we really trust, Biden, CDC, and Fauchi?

First up, the COVID ‘HOSPITALIZATION’ STATS ARE WRONG

Health experts consider hospitalizations as the main barometer for measuring where we are in the Covid pandemic. But a major study just revealed that roughly half of the recorded Covid hospitalizations are not accurate.

The truth: The Atlantic [a left-wing news outlet] broke down the study and found that just under 50% of reported hospitalizations are for either asymptomatic cases or mild cases.

Why this matters: Health professions consider hospitalizations the most vital metric for tracking the risk posed by the disease. Death obviously is an important metric, but hospitalization also tells you how many people suffered major illnesses along with death. So when half of those hospitalizations tracked are not serious illness… You’ve got a problem.

Why are the numbers SO wrong: The Federal government requires hospitals to report every patient who tests positive for Covid. A positive test adds them to the “hospitalizations” pile, with no differentiation between severity. Some of the reasons they are considered hospitalized are:

They have mild symptoms but the doctor wants to observe them because they have comorbidities
Sometimes they’re at the hospital for un-related illness and happen to test positive for Covid.

Then the media gets a hold of these totals and you end up with sensationalized headlines about hospitals being at capacity. And it’s no wonder why time after time, the hospitals have to correct the media claims that they’re near 100% capacity.

Second, up, NEW DOCUMENTS INDICATE FAUCI FUNDED DEADLY RESEARCH THAT HE PREVIOUSLY DENIED

The debate is over. The U.S., thought Dr. Anthony Fauci, sent millions of your tax dollars to fund deadly gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – the same lab where Covid likely originated.
The Intercept sued the U.S. government for 900-pages of previously hidden documents that prove it.

Before we get into the Intercept article, I want to remind you of this interaction between Senator Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci from July 20 at a Senate hearing:

Senator Rand Paul: “Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th, where you claim that the NIH never funded ‘gain of function’ research in Wuhan?”

Dr. Fauci: “Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress and I do not retract that statement… and Senator Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about.”

Back up: ‘Gain of function’ is basically when scientists speed up the mutation of a virus in a lab. Through these mutations, a virus “gains new functions” and can become much more deadly.

This bombshell report provides deeper insight into how the U.S. funded gain of function research with bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and funneled the funding through a U.S.-based company called EcoHealth Alliance.
“The trove of documents includes two previously unpublished grant proposals that were funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (which Fauci runs), as well as project updates relating to the EcoHealth Alliance’s research, which has been scrutinized amid increased interest in the origins of the pandemic.”

Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University says these new documents prove that the Fauci grants to EcoHealth “funded gain-of-function research as defined in federal policies” because it specifically sought to make chimeric SARS-based coronaviruses, which they confirmed could infect human cells.

Ebright continues: “The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful.“

“This is a roadmap to the high-risk research that could have led to the current pandemic,” according to Gary Ruskin, executive director of U.S. Right To Know.

Meanwhile but most important is the Biden Admin, the Surgeon general has stated that the US is to ‘monitor’ whether vaccine exemptions are being used properly

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy has advised that the Biden administration will “monitor” to ensure no one abuses COVID-19 vaccine exemptions.

President Biden announced a mandate that required any company with at least 100 employees to mandate its workforce. The only way to avoid the mandate is to claim an exemption on either religious or medical grounds.

Some critics argue that the exemptions allow for simple abuse, but Murthy insists the administration will ensure that does not happen.

“Unfortunately, as a country, we have experience in dealing with exemptions, but we’ve got to be vigilant there and make sure that people are using them, you know, in the spirit that they’re intended and not abusing them or asking for exemptions when they don’t apply,” Murthy told CNN’s “State of the Union.” “That’s an area that we continue to monitor in the days and weeks ahead.”

Biden’s vaccine mandate has met immediate opposition from Republican governors, who made clear that they plan to oppose the mandate with legal action if necessary after claiming the mandate was “unconstitutional.”

“The American Dream has turned into a nightmare under President Biden and the radical Democrats,” Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster said on Twitter in response to the mandate. “They have declared war against capitalism, thumbed their noses at the Constitution, and empowered our enemies abroad.”

The new mandate would affect about 80 million Americans, with about 17 million workers at health facilities also required to get vaccinated.

There is something more pressing about all of this… WHY DID THE CDC CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF ‘VACCINE’?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently updated its definition for the term “vaccine” on its website. See if you can spot the difference.

The old definition: “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.”

The new definition: “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”

Why would the CDC remove the part of the definition that refers to producing immunity? They claim “the current definition is more transparent” because vaccines never produce 100% immunity.

It seems that the old definition doesn’t square with their plan to continue to roll out booster shots every 6-8 months. So they had to get rid of the language. Or they could be trying to get ahead of the fact that the vaccines aren’t protecting as well against the Delta variant.

[Source: The Atlantic, The Intercept, Epoch Times, Fox News, Waking Up Right]

#Boykin4Congress
Peter R Boykin
Peter Boykin For United States Congress
https://BoykinForCongress.com
https://t.me/BoykinForCongress

Support The Podcast and Website
To Donate to the Podcast (NOT THE CAMPAIGN)
https://paypal.me/magafirstnews

Join Peter Boykin on Telegram
https://t.me/RealPeterBoykin

#GoRightNews
https://GoRightNews.com



Reader's opinions

Leave a Reply


Current track

Title

Artist

Background