Senator Johnson recently sounded off over the lack oversight in the Senate Oversight Committee, which is charged with subpoenaing documents, auditing and conducting oversight of government agencies, and when needed providing citizens with information through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) based on their right to know. Fauci’s agencies NIH/NIAID seem to think no one has a right to know about the illegal gain-of-function bioweapon programs being conducted offshore in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology and other places. In fact, Fauci and the agencies he is charged with running are thumbing their noses at the committee.
Senator Johnson Calls For More Transparency In Fauci Communications
Senator Johnson: Don’t exactly have a score on the grant programs would be contemplating here, but whatever the costs would be my memo would just simply fund those from the unobligated funds of the American rescue plan. It’s pretty simple, a pretty simple amendment. But while I have the floor here, I do want to speak to another issue that I thinks is important to this committee. Um, this committee is the Senate Oversight Committee. Now, when I was chair for six years, I know there was some support for investigations, some of my oversight, sometimes there wasn’t. But, when we have hearings on nominees, we ask them a question: whether or not they will comply with legitimate senate oversight requests. And they always say, Yes, and that’s also true of the health committee. Uh, five senators, uh, from this committee, uh, sent letters to the NIH and CDC, and then sent away to the CDC and HHS. And we invoked 5UFC2954, which states, “That executive AMC on request of the Committee of Homeland Security, where any five members thereof shall submit any information of or relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of this committee. Now again, this committee has broad oversight jurisdiction. Um, we have not gotten those oversight letters responded to, not effectively, not in a complete format. Um, Mr. Chairman, I sent you a letter, also signed by five senators, requesting you utilize this committee’s power to compel the agencies to follow the law.
They shall supply the information. Now, I just want to use one example, um, a letter we sent to HHS secretary Becerra requesting the unredacted emails from Anthony Fauci that were provided under a forwarding request to a number of different outside groups. We requested those same emails unredacted. By the way, congressional oversight is not subject to the redactions is not subject to the redactions under FOIA. We should have received those unredacted. Um, proof of the fact that the redactions are not valid, I just have copies of one of the emails. This is an email from Peter Daszak dated April 18, and it’s just thanking Anthony Fauci for basically covering for EcoHealth Alliance. You can see from what was produced to the committee, and in the FOIA request, we have a big redaction here.
Redacted Email to Fauci by EcoAlliance Head Peter Daszac
And it was redacted supposedly because it was related to an open law enforcement investigation. We basically got the same 4,000 pages, the five senators, uh, except that on this one email, they failed to redact it, so now we know what’s under the redaction. Let me just read you, what was supposedly related to an open investigation. It says, “It has been a very hard few months, as these conspiracy theorists have gradually become politicized and hardened in their stance, especially because the work we’ve been doing in collaboration with Chinese virologists have given us incredible into the risks that these viruses represent, so we can directly help protect our nation from bat origin coronaviruses. We’re fighting to keep our communications open with our Chinese colleagues so that we can better address future pandemics like CoViD-19.”
I have no idea why that would be redacted in an oversight response to congress. I have no idea how that paragraph could be related to an open law enforcement investigation. So, I won’t describe this any further other than to again make the point: This law that we are invoking that requires…that tells these agencies they shall turn over this information—this is a one-hundred- year law—it’s been modified two times, most recently in 1994 signed by Bill Clinton. The supreme court has affirmed congress’s need to have information to write effective legislation. For too many years—and again I was the brunt of it for six years as the chairman of this committee—government agencies, regardless of the administration have thumbed their nose at congressional oversight. They just simply refuse to comply. So, we end up being completely ineffective in an incredibly important constitutional duty and responsibility od congress. Now again, there is no reason—they have the emails. All they have to do is provide them to the five centers that have requested them in an unredacted fashion.
By the way our other oversight request is to CDC regarding any contact between the teachers’ unions and the CDC regarding their reopening of school guidance. Was that based on science or was that based on political pressure? I think the public has a right to know. So again, is the senate committee and oversight? If we sit back and do nothing, administrations in the future, regardless of whether they’re Republican or Democrat—whether Democrats are in the majority in the senate or Republicans are—administrations will continue to ignore our oversight requests, and we will not be able to fulfill our constitutional duty and responsibility to our constituents. So, I would hope that every member of this committee with join those five senators that joined me, and use this committee’s power to subpoena those records to say in a very strong unanimous voice congress will not be ignored. Our oversight responsibilities are important, and we demand, we insist that the administration provides us this information…
Forbes Breaking News, “‘No Idea Why That Would Be Redacted’: Johnson Calls For More Transparency In Fauci Communications,” August 4, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKyda16KrJ8
By Timothy Spearman
Denials by Fauci that the NIH’s sub-grant agency EcoHealth Alliance was not funding gain-of-function research is an obvious lie. Why the need for the sub-grant agency to send the money to WIV if there is nothing to hide? Clearly, there was a need to hide something, if the NIH in its wisdom, selected a sub-grant agency with the intention of sending the money indirectly rather than directly to make it more difficult to ascertain the true source of the funding. In addition, we have the article co-authored by batlady Xie Zhengli and Ralph Baric et al, outlining the gain-of-function research they were conducing at WIV. Just look at the abstract of the paper which outlines the nature of their gain-of-function research so clearly:
The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV underscores the threat of cross-species transmission events leading to outbreaks in humans. Here we examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations1. Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system2, we generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone. The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV. Additionally, in vivo experiments demonstrate replication of the chimeric virus in mouse lung with notable pathogenesis. Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein. On the basis of these findings, we synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo. Our work suggests a potential risk of SARS-CoV re-emergence from viruses currently circulating in bat populations.[i]
The gain-of-function research is undeniable. As the authors of the paper make explicitly clear, they created a chimera virus, in a laboratory setting, by inserting a zoonotic CoV spike protein from the RsSHC014-CoV sequence, isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats, onto the SARS-CoV mouse-adapted backbone, for the purpose of evaluating the potential of bat coronaviruses to infect humans. This is how the authors of the study put it in their own words:
Although public health measures were able to stop the SARS-CoV outbreak, recent metagenomics studies have identified sequences of closely related SARS-like viruses circulating in Chinese bat populations that may pose a future threat. However, sequence data alone provides minimal insights to identify and prepare for future prepandemic viruses. Therefore, to examine the emergence potential (that is, the potential to infect humans) of circulating bat CoVs, we built a chimeric virus encoding a novel, zoonotic CoV spike protein—from the RsSHC014-CoV sequence that was isolated from Chinese horseshoe bats—in the context of the SARS-CoV mouse-adapted backbone.[ii]
Gain-of-function research can no longer be denied. Fauci is a bold-faced liar. Gain-of-function applications of bat coronaviruses was being conducted at WIV. Sen. Rand Paul was exactly right that Dr. Xie Zhengli and Ralph Baric collaborated with their team on creating a chimeric virus that exactly matches the SARS-CoV-2 virus affecting the human population. The fact that Fauci’s NIH funded this research indirectly through a sub-grant agency proves that efforts were being made to hide the source of funding, which means that those involved knew that what they were funding was nefarious and in breach of international law. This makes all those involved criminals, including and especially, Fauci. The title “doctor” will be dispensed with as much as possible in reference to this man, as well as in the case of Xie, as the word “doctor” comes from the Latin and means “teacher”. What are they teaching us? How to violate every code of human decency and ethics, break most of the Ten Commandments, violate international law, commit genocide and crimes against humanity on an unfathomable scale worldwide? Thanks, but if it’s all the same to you, Fauci and Xie, we’d rather not fall under your tutelage and be taught anything by you.
Looking at what the authors of the study say next makes explicit the fact that, not only did this study involve a Frankenstein-like experiment to create a viral chimera in a lab, but clearly alludes to experimentation to discern its pathogenicity:
The hybrid virus allowed us to evaluate the ability of the novel spike protein to cause disease independently of other necessary adaptive mutations in its natural backbone. Using this approach, we characterized CoV infection mediated by the SHC014 spike protein in primary human airway cells and in vivo, and tested the efficacy of available immune therapeutics against SHC014-CoV. Together, the strategy translates metagenomics data to help predict and prepare for future emergent viruses.[iii]
Just to be clear in vivo gene therapy means that therapy is administered directly to the patient. The targeted cells remain in the body of the patient. With ex vivo gene/cell therapy, the targeted cells are removed from the patient and gene therapy is administered to the cells in vitro before they are returned to the patient’s body. This would suggest that patients were being experimented upon directly as part of the study, and that patients were being infected with a virus with like or identical properties to SARS-CoV-2—whether with or without their knowledge and consent is not known—for the purpose of studying the path and nature of infection, and to experiment with existing medical therapies to ascertain the effectiveness of what the study authors call “available immune therapeutics.”
Certainly, experiments were conducted on mice to see how they reacted to exposure to the dangerous pathogen:
To evaluate the role of the SHC014 spike in mediating infection in vivo, they infected 10-week-old mice with plaque-forming properties of either SARS-MA15 or SHC014-MA15. Animals infected with SARS-MA15 experienced rapid weight loss and lethality; in contrast, SHC014-MA15 infection produced substantial weight loss (10%) but no lethality in mice. Examination of viral replication revealed nearly equivalent viral titers—the lowest concentration of a virus that still infects cells—from the lungs of mice infected with SARS-MA15 or SHC014-MA15. Whereas lungs from the SARS-MA15–infected mice showed substantial staining in both the terminal bronchioles and the lung parenchyma, those of SHC014-MA15–infected mice showed reduced airway antigen staining; in contrast, no deficit in antigen staining was observed in the parenchyma or in the overall histology scoring, suggesting differential infection of lung tissue for SHC014-MA15. They then analyzed infection in more susceptible, aged (12-month-old) animals. SARS-MA15–infected animals rapidly lost weight and succumbed to infection. SHC014-MA15 infection induced robust and sustained weight loss, but had minimal lethality. Together, the data indicate that viruses with the SHC014 spike are capable of inducing weight loss in mice in the context of a virulent CoV backbone.[iv]
This experimentation on juvenile and geriatric mice must have been done with a purpose. When the UN and affiliated world government bodies are constantly emphasizing the fact that the global population is too high and must be reduced and that we have exceeded the planet’s carrying capacity, it is self-evident that seniors, the superannuated, the elderly, whatever you wish to call them, are unwanted. Therefore, the effect of the virus on geriatric mice must have been done for the described purpose of testing lethality rates for certain strains of the virus on older mice to study how it might affect a similar population of humans.
The scientists noted that some of the SARS-CoV strains were unable to bind to the human ACE2, the receptor for SARS-CoV. The authors further claim that the SHC014 spike protein was unable to bind to human ACE2, but noted that similar changes in related SARS-CoV strains did allow for ACE2 binding, “suggesting that additional functional testing was required for verification.” They then admit to synthesizing the SHC014 spike with “the replication-competent, mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone” in order “to maximize the opportunity for pathogenesis and vaccine studies in mice.”[v] This is exactly what gain-of-function research consists of in a nutshell, so there is no chance of denying it took place or that WIV was not conducting gain-of-function research. Claims by Fauci that the funding was not for that purpose is simply a lie. No amount of obfuscation or denials by slippery characters like Fauci can absolve them of their complicity in the criminal operation. Fauci cannot wash the blood from his hands no matter how many times he shouts, “Out damn spot!” There is no longer any chance of denying gain-of-function research was being conducted at WIV.
Another objection and reply to objection that should be made in the course of defending this claim is that any allegation of xenophobic conspiracy theory being made against this information can be discounted by simply examining the list of authors involved in this study that had to be privy to whatever lab testing was being conducted at WIV: Vineet D. Menachery, Boyd L Yount Jr., Kari Debbink, Sudhakar Agnihothram, Lisa E. Gralinski, Jessica A. Plante, Rachel L. Graham, Trevor Scobey, Xing-Yi Ge, Eric F. Donaldson, Scott H. Randell, Antonio Lanzavecchia, Wayne A. Marasco, Zhengli-Li Shi & Ralph S. Baric. With the exception of Xing-Yi Ge and Zhengli-Li Xie, all the other scientists involved in the study are from the West, probably sent directly from lab facilities owned and operated by the NIH.
In fact, despite his Indian name and background, Vineet D Menachery did his Ph.D. at Washington University in Saint Louis. He is currently working in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Texas Medical Branch. His current research is focused on: “Utilizing severe coronavirus infections, the Menachery Lab seeks to define virus-host interactions that dictate disease outcomes taking advantage of three cutting edge platforms: 1) reverse genetic systems for virus generation, 2) a refined systems biology approach, and 3) diverse model systems for infection.”[vi] The University of Texas is also home to Professor Eric Plianka, the “ecologist” who told a meeting of the Texas Academy of Science that a human population reduction was necessary in order to save the planet.[vii]
Amazingly, it turns out that Vaneet D. Manachery and Sudhakar Agnihothram have the same picture posted in association with their identities when doing a profile search on Google:
In fact, Sudhakar Agnihothram has no picture posted of himself on Facebook and on other profiles. Why is that? And why would the same picture be posted for both men on Google? What is the cause of this mix up? Is Sudhakar Agnihothram an alter identity of Vaneet D. Menachery? Is Vaneet D. Manachery a government agent employing two identities? Looking at the various research studies undertaken by Sudhakar Agnihothram and Vaneet D. Menachary, it looks like they are undertaking exactly the same kind of research. It is remarkable to note how they both just happen to have their fingers on the pulse of all the latest respiratory diseases that have affected the world since the beginning of the millennium.
[i] Vineet D Menachery, Boyd L Yount Jr, Kari Debbink, Sudhakar Agnihothram, Lisa E Gralinski, Jessica A Plante, Rachel L Graham, Trevor Scobey, Xing-Yi Ge, Eric F Donaldson, Scott H Randell, Antonio Lanzavecchia, Wayne A Marasco, Zhengli-Li Shi & Ralph S Baric, “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence,” https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985#Ack1
[vi] utmb Health, https://microbiology.utmb.edu/faculty/vineet-d-menachery-phd
[vii] Ronald Baley, “To Save the Planet, Kill 90 Percent of People Off, Says UT Ecologist,” April 3, 2006, https://reason.com/2006/04/03/to-save-the-planet-kill-90-per/
In a recent Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on NIH funding, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) asked Dr. Anthony Fauci about the origins of COVID-19 and past statements by him which downplayed the lab-leak theory. The senator wanted to know why a natural occurrence theory of origin was favored over a lab leak, and wondered what the precedent for that was. The transcript of the interview is below:
Senator Rubio: Thanks all of you for being here. I think I’ll direct this to Dr. Fauci, but I welcome his answer. I just want to go through what we do know. We’ve heard a lot about what we don’t know. So, here are the things we do know, okay? So, SARS-1, we identified the host animal within four months. MERS I believe we identified the host animal within nine months. It’s now been 15 and a half, 16 months, and we’ve still not seen, and China’s not produced any evidence of the host animal that transmitted CoViD-19 to a human. Um, we know that China has a history of lab accidents. I think Dr. Fauci you answered Senator Graham’s question, I think he phrased it, “Has there ever been a pandemic that came out of a laboratory and the answer was, No. But we do know of outbreaks that came out of a…out of a laboratory. I believe, uh, back in 2004, two researchers in Beijing were infected doing some research on SARS and it led to an outbreak. China has a history of lab accidents. Um, this outbreak happened in a city that happened to be home coincidentally of a lab which we know involved in extensive research. And what they so is they take this naturally occurring virus, and they manipulate it, and change it to make it infectious to humans. We know that they do that there. They published about it. And it also happened in a city and a lab where a Rutgers biosecurity raised concerns about its safety, and our diplomats in 2018 were cabling back to Washington expressing concern about this. So, I take all those facts together, right? SARS, we knew the host in four months; MERS we knew the host in nine; we still don’t know the host for CoViD even though—and China’s not being transparent about it—even though they have a vested interest in producing the host, so they can put all of this down. Um, in a lab that we know is involved in changing viruses synthetically so that they become infectious for humans, um, in a lab that diplomats have told us is unsafe, in a country with a history of lab leaks. And by the way in a virus that we know can be synthetically created because the Swiss just did it, the Swiss created an exact replica of this virus in the lab, for purposes of answering it. All of these facts were available to us last May, last April, why—I’ll start with Dr. Fauci, why did you dismiss the lab leak theory as…as credible?
Dr. Fauci: I have always said that the high likelihood is that this is a natural occurrence. I didn’t dismiss anything. I just said it’s a high likelihood that this is a natural occurrence from the environment of an animal reservoir that we have not yet identified. And I still maintain that, but as I just mentioned in the response to other questions that since you don’t know 100% about that because no one knows, including me, 100% what the origin is, is the reason why we’re in favor of further investigation.
Senator Rubio: Well, given everything I’ve decided, and if anything I’ve decided isn’t correct, I hope I’ll be corrected. I’m relying—obviously it is not my field of study—so I’m relying on what other experts have published. What is the basis for the high likelihood, what is the basis for the conclusion that it is likelier to have been naturally occurring than a lab accident? I asked this specific question to the director of national intelligence, and how I posed it, “Is it not true that it is the assessment that they are equally likely based on our information that we have. So, as I outline all of these things, is she wrong when she answered my, Yes? And based on everything. I’ve decided why,,,what is it that we’re basing the higher likelihood of naturally occurring, is it simply because that’s all we’ve ever seen in the past?
Dr, Fauci: Well, we have historically experience that happened with SARS, CoV-1; it happened with MERS; it happened with HIV; it happened with virtually all the influenza pandemics. So, the historical basis for pandemics evolving naturally from an animal reservoir is extremely strong. And it’s for that reason that we felt that something similar like this has a much higher likelihood, But again, getting back to what I said, and let me repeat so there is no lack of clarity in that. No one knows, not even I, 100% at this point, which is the reason why we are in favor of further investigation.
Senator Rubio: But going back to precedent. Precedent require them to be similar, the difference between this one and that one is—and as I said, four months we knew the host for SARS, nine months we knew the host for MERS. China has all the incentive in the world to produce this host, and hasn’t done so. And then you add up all these other things. I mean is it just a coincidence it happened in the city that’s doing this kind of research, which by the way is controversial. I know you have not been supportive of it. It’s controversial. It’s not widely accepted as good. My whole point is that there are people out there who had Facebook posts taken down, were called cooks, conspiracy theorists for publicly a year ago what we now say may be possible. And I think those people deserve an apology at a minimum. Thank you.
Forbes Breaking News, “Why Did You Dismiss The Lab-Leak Theory?”: Rubio Grills Fauci On Past Statements Of COVID-19 Origin”, May 27, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilt_NcaIIRk
Rand Paul has made a rousing call to action for all Americans. He calls for civil disobedience. Not violence or disrespecting police, but simply civil disobedience like we now see in France, where vaxxed and unvaxxed alike have united by not playing along the President Macron, a globalist and member of the cabal if ever there was. The French are boycotting cafes, restaurants and public places, refusing to comply with government mandates. If they must produce a COVID passport they would sooner not visit any public places. THEY CHOOSE FREEDOM INSTEAD. Americans are at a crossroads. They must also choose freedom over tyranny and brutality.
SENATOR PAUL’S SPEECH
It’s time for us to resist. They can’t arrest all of us. They can’t keep all of your kids home from school. They can’t keep every government building closed. Although I’ve got a long list of ones they might keep closed or might ought to keep closed. We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns, and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and bureaucrats. We can simply say, ‘No, not again.’
Nancy Pelosi, you will not arrest me or stop me or anyone on my staff from doing our jobs. We have either had CoViD, had the vaccine, or been offered the vaccine. We will make our own health choices. We will not show you a passport. We will not wear a mask. We will not be forced into random screenings and testings, so you can continue your drunk with power reign over the capitol.
President Biden, we will not accept your agency’s mandate or your reported moves toward a lockdown. No one should follow the CDC’s anti-science mask mandates. And if you want to shutdown federal agencies again—some of which aren’t even back to work yet—I will stop every bill coming through the senate with an amendment to cut their funding if they don’t come back to work in person.
Local bureaucrats and union bosses, we will not allow you to do more harm to our children again this year. Children are not at any more risk from CoViD than they are from the seasonal flu. Every adult who works in schools has either had the vaccine or had their chance to get vaccinated. There is no reason for mask mandates, part-time schools, or any lockdown measures. Children are falling behind in school, and are being harmed physically and psychologically by the tactics you have used to keep them from the classroom during the last year. We won’t allow it again. If a school system attempts to keep children full-time, in-person school, I will hold up every bill with two amendments: one to defund them, and another to allow parents the choice of where the money goes for their child’s education.
Do I sound fed up to you? That’s because I am. I’m not a career politician. I practiced medicine for 33 years. I graduated from Duke Medical School. I’ve worked in emergency rooms. I’ve studied immunology and virology. And I ultimately chose to become an eye surgeon. I’ve been telling everyone for a year now that Dr. Fauci, and other public health bureaucrats, were not following the science, and I’ve been proven right time and time again. But I’m not the only one who’s fed up. I can’t go anywhere these days without people coming up and thanking me for standing up for them, whether I’m at work or at events in Kentucky, at airports, at restaurants, or at stores. People thank me for taking a stand. They thank me for standing up for actual science, for standing up for freedom, for standing against mandates, lockdowns, and bureaucratic power grabs. I think the tide is turning, as more and more people are willing to stand up. I see stories from across the country of parents standing up to the unions and school boards. I’ve seen brave moms standing up and saying, “My kids need to go back to school, in person.” I see members of congress refusing to comply with petty tyrant, Pelosi. We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads. Will we allow these people to use fear and propaganda to do further harm to our society, economy, and children or will we stand together and say, “Absolutely not. Not this time. I choose freedom.”
Senator Rand Paul on Instagram, “Choose Freedom,” https://www.instagram.com/tv/CSXdy9alWbs/
Rand Paul recently interrogated Fauci on his role in the authorship and release of the SARS-CoV-2 bioweapon. The interrogation was spirited and Paul did his best to circle the wagons on Fauci in the interview, but like most psychopaths, Fauci was unflappable and unmoved even at the most heated moments of the interrogation, being devoid of emotion or empathy, while being well-trained in the art of obfuscation, deflection, and concealment. The simple fact is that he is well-trained deep cover Deep State agent, who was handpicked to be the last on the suspect list simply because he is in charge of the U.S. government’s response to this 21st century plague. Who would have ever thought it would be him? Who would have ever believed it possible? However, Rand Paul’s undisputable facts, presented in the course of interrogation, make it clear that a transfer of funds was made to fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Sen. Rand Paul: Dr. Fauci, we don’t know whether the pandemic started in a lab in Wuhan or evolved naturally, but we should want to know. Three million people have died from this pandemic and that should cause us to explore all possibilities. Instead, government authorities, self-interested gain-of-function research say there’s nothing to see here. Gain-of-function research, as you know, is juicing up naturally occurring animal viruses to infect humans. To arrive at the truth, the U.S. government should admit that the Wuhan virology institute was experimenting to enhance the coronavirus’s ability to infect humans. Juicing up superviruses is not new. Scientists in the U.S. have long known how to mutate animal viruses to infect humans. For years, Dr. Ralph Baric, a virologist in the U.S. has been collaborating with Dr. Xie Zhengli of the Wuhan virology institute, sharing his discoveries about how to create superviruses. This gain-of-function research has been funded by the NIH. The collaboration between the U.S. and the Wuhan virology institute continues. Drs. Baric and Xie worked together to insert bat virus spike protein into the backbone of the deadly SARS virus. And then used this manmade supervirus to infect human airway cells. Think about that for a moment. The SARS virus had a 15% mortality. We’re fighting a pandemic that has about a 1% mortality. Can you imagine if a SARS virus that’s been juiced up, and had viral proteins added to it to the spike protein, if that were released accidentally?
Dr. Fauci, do you still support funding of the NIH funding of the lab in Wuhan?
Dr. Fauci: Sen. Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever, and does not now, fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Sen. Rand Paul: Do they fund Dr. Barrett?
Dr. Fauci: We do not fund gain-of-function…
Sen. Rand Paul: Do you find Dr. Barrett’s research?
Dr. Fauci: Dr. Baric is not doing gain-of-function research, and if it is, it is according to the guidelines, and it is being conducted in North Carolina and not…
Sen. Rand Paul: You don’t think the bat virus spike protein that he got from the Wuhan lab institute into the SARS virus is gain-of-function?
Dr. Fauci: It is not…
Sen Rand Paul: You would be in the minority because at least other scientists have signed a statement that from the Cambridge Working Group saying that it is gain of function.
Dr. Fauci: Well, it is not. And if you look at the grant, and you look at the progress reports, it is not gain-of-function, despite the fact that people tweet that…
Sen, Rand Paul: So do you still support sending money to the Wuhan virology institute?
Dr, Fauci: We do not now send money to the Wuhan virology…
Sen. Rand Paul: Do you support sending money? We did, under your tutelage, we were sending money, sending it through EcoHealth—it was a sub-agency and sub-grant. Do you support that the money from NIH was going to the Wuhan institute?
Dr. Fauci: Let me explain to you why that was done. The SARS-CoV-1 originated in bats in China. It would have been irresponsible of us if we did not investigate the bat viruses and the serology to see who might have been infected,
Sen. Rand Paul: Or perhaps it would be possible to send it to the Chinese government that we might not be able to trust with this knowledge and with this incredibly dangerous virus. Government scientists like yourself, who favor this gain-of-function research…
Dr. Fauci: I don’t favor gain-of-function research in China. You are saying things that are not correct.
Sen Rand Paul: Government defenders of gain-of-function, such as yourself, say that CoViD-19 mutations were random and not designed by man, but interestingly the technique that Dr. Baric developed forces mutations by serial passage through cell culture so that the mutations appear to be natural. In fact, Dr. Baric named the technique the no-see-it technique because the mutations appear naturally.
Nicholas Baker, of New York Magazine, said, “No one would know if the virus had been fabricated in a laboratory or grown in nature. Government authorities in the U,S., including yourself, unequivocally deny that CoViD-19 could have escaped a lab, but even Dr. Xie in Wuhan wasn’t so sure. According to Nicholas Baker. Dr. Xie wondered, ‘Could this new virus have come from her own laboratory?’ She checked her records frantically and found no matches. “That really took a load off my mind,” she said. “I had not slept for days.”
The director of the gain-of-function research at Wuhan couldn’t sleep because she was terrified that it might be in her lab. Dr. Baric, an advocate of gain-of-function research, admits, “The main problem with the institute of virology is that the outbreak occurred in close proximity. What are the odds?” Baric responded, “Could you rule out a laboratory escape? The answer in this case is probably not.”
Will you in front of this group categorically say that the CoViD-19 could not have occurred through serial passage in a laboratory?
Dr. Fauci: I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done, and I am fully in favor of any further investigation of what went on in China. However, I will repeat again, the NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Sen Rand Paul: You do support it in the U.S. We have eleven labs doing it, and you have allowed it here. We have a committee to do it here. The committee is granted every exemption. You’re fooling with Mother Nature here. You’re allowing superviruses to be created with a 15% mortality. It’s very dangerous, and it’s a huge mistake to share this with China, and it’s a huge mistake to allow this to continue in the United States, And we should be very careful to investigate where this virus came from.
Dr. Fauci: I fully agree that you should investigate where the virus came from, but again, we have not funded gain-of-function research on this virus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. No matter how many times you say it, it didn’t happen.
Sen. Rand Paul: There was research done with Dr. Xie and Dr. Baric. They have collaborated on gain-of-function research, where they had enhanced the SARS virus to infect human airway cells. And they did it by merging a new spike protein on it. That is gain of function. That is joint research between the Wuhan institute and Dr. Baric. You can’t deny it.
Chair: Sen, Paul, your time has expired. Dr. Fauci, I will let you respond to that. We need to move on.
Dr. Fauci: Excuse me?
Chair: I will allow you to respond to that, and then we’ll move on.
Dr. Fauci: Yeah, I mean I just wanted to say, I don’t know how many times I can say it, Madam Chair, we did not fund gain-of-function research to be conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[i]
There are some concerning statements made by Dr. Fauci in this interview that need to be examined.
In a follow up interview, Fauci offered a more comprehensive explanation:
Dr. Fauci: We had a big scare with SARS-CoViD-1 back in 2002-2003, where that particular virus unquestionably went from a bat to an intermediate host to start an epidemic and a pandemic that resulted in 8,000 cases and close to 800 deaths. It would have been almost a dereliction of our duty if we didn’t study this. And the only way you could study these things is you’ve got to go where the action is. So I often say somewhat tongue in cheek, ‘You don’t want to study bats in Fairfax County, Virginia to find out what the animal-human interface is that might lead to a jumping of species. So we had a modest collaboration with very respectable Chinese scientists, who were world experts on coronavirus. And we did that through a sub-grant from a larger grant to EcoHealth. The sub-grant was about $600,000 over a period of five years. So it was a modest amount. And the purpose of it was to study the animal-human interface to do surveillance, and to determine if these bat viruses were even capable of transmitting infection to humans.[ii]
[i] “Fauci and Rand Paul clash over SUPER VIRUS CONSPIRACY,” May 11, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U1ViAabtd8
[ii] Fauci interview on C-Span featured in “Fauci admits ‘modest’ NIH funding of Wuhan lab but denies ‘gain of function’” https://nypost.com/2021/05/25/fauci-admits-nih-funding-of-wuhan-lab-denies-gain-of-function/
Everything about the investigation of Fauci shows that he is duplicitous liar who seeks every sneaky avenue available to undertake his mad science. He is an unscrupulous psychopath with no moral compunction, who seems to derive pleasure from undertaking research that is as depraved, nefarious, and unethical as possible. For instance, a FOIA disclosure recently found that Fauci used U.S. taxpayer money to conduct inhumane experiments on dogs. Documents obtained by the White Coat Waste Project showed that the NIAID, an agency Fauci oversees, spent $424,000 to infest healthy beagles with flies that carried dangerous parasites.
Fauci’s experiments reportedly resulted in several dogs being infected by the parasites, with multiple dogs being bitten to death by flies. NIAID claimed those experiments were carried out to test the effectiveness of anti-parasitic drugs, despite ethical concerns. The few dogs that survived Fauci’s tests were later euthanized and disposed of. If Fauci is able to do this to an animal much beloved by fellow Americans, an animal long regarded as “man’s best friend,” what would stop him from flouting every ethical rule on the books to conduct experiments in germ warfare that could have implications for human populations.
“The NIH website says they choose beagles because they’re small and docile, means they are easy to abuse,” explained Justin Goodman of White Coat Waste Project. “They took these 28 healthy beagles, infected them with parasites by, as they’ve done in the past, strapping devices that allow them to eat them alive basically, give them parasites and then they killed the dogs at the end of the study.”[i]
[i] One America News Network (OANN), “FOIA Disclosure: Fauci Conducted Inhumane Tests On Dogs, NIAID Wasted $424k Of Taxpayer Funds To Infest Healthy Dogs With Parasites,” August 8, 2021, https://www.oann.com/foia-disclosure-fauci-conducted-inhumane-tests-on-dogs-niaid-wasted-424k-of-taxpayer-funds-to-infest-healthy-dogs-with-parasites/
If the lies and obfuscations made by Fauci in his senate hearing interrogations by Rand Paul were not enough to raise one’s hackles and cause one to question the narrative, then perhaps Senator Kennedy’s interrogation of the good doctor might elicit more questions in one’s mind.
Senator Kennedy: Madame Chairwoman. Uh Dr. Fauci, I believe you have testified that, uh, that uh, you didn’t give any money to the Wuhan lab to conduct gain-of-function research, is that right?
Dr. FauciL That is correct.
Senator Kennedy: How do you know they didn’t lie to you?
Dr. Fauci: Excuse me, sir?
Senator Kennedy: How do you know they didn’t lie to you and use the money for gain-of-function research anyway?
Dr. Fauci: Well, we’ve seen the results of the experiments that were done, and that were published and the viruses that they, um, studied are all on public databases now. So, none of that was gain-of-function, and so…
Senator Kennedy: How do you know they didn’t do the research, and uh, not put it on their website?
Dr. Fauci: There’s no way of guaranteeing that, but in our experience with grantees, including Chinese grantees, which we’ve had interactions with for a very long period of time, they’re very competent, trustworthy scientists. I’m not talking about anything else in China. I’m talking about the scientists, that you would expect that they would abide by the conditions of the grant, which they’ve done for the years that we’ve had interactions with them.
Senator Kennedy: So, you don’t think the Chinese would lie to you?
Dr. Fauci: Well, when you say the Chinese, the Chinese are a rather broad group. I know the scientists that we’ve dealt with have been trustworthy.
Senator Kennedy: Um huh. You think all the scientists, uh, have told the truth in terms of the origin of the Wuhan virus and not been influenced by the communist party of China, do you?
Dr. Fauci: I don’t have enough insight into the communist party in China to know the interactions between them and the scientists there.
Senator Kennedy: Right? Why are we giving them money in the first place?
Dr. Fauci: Well, that’s a very good question, and thank you for the opportunity to answer it. Well, SARS-CoV-1 started in China, in Guangdong Province, and it went from a bat to a civic cat to a human.
Senator Kennedy: Yes, and excuse my Doc, for interrupting, but our time is so short.
Dr. Fauci: Yeah, I’m going to be really quick.
Senator Kennedy: Our time is so limited. Why are we giving money to the labs in China to study virology?
Dr. Fauci: Well, I’m going to give you a rather succinct answer to that, sir.
Senator Kennedy: I appreciate that.
Dr. Fauci: And that’s why I was saying the SARS-CoV-1—clearly the bats have the viruses that have the coronaviruses are in China. As I said a couple of times, it’s not in Fairfax County, Virginia, or is it in New York. It’s in China. So, if you want to show and study importantly the animal-human interface…
Senator Kennedy: So, that’s where the bats are?
Dr. Fauci: Yeah, the bats.
Senator Kennedy: I gotya. I want to be sure I understand your testimony. You didn’t give money to the Wuhan lab to do gain-of-function research.
Dr. Fauci: That is correct.
Senator Kennedy: And you believe they didn’t do gain-of-function research because they told you they didn’t.
Dr. Fauci: We’ve seen the results of the studies that they conducted and they were not…
Senator Kennedy: Including any private studies?
Dr. Fauci: Excuse me, including…?
Senator Kennedy: Any private studies.
Dr. Fauci: I’m not sure what you’re getting at, sir.
Senator Kennedy: Here’s what I’m getting at. You gave the money, and you said, ‘Don’t do gain-of-function research.
Dr. Fauci: Correct.
Senator Kennedy: And they said, ‘We won’t.’
Dr. Fauci: Correct.
Senator Kennedy: And you have no way of knowing whether they did or not except that you trust them. Is that right?
Dr. Fauci: Well, we generally trust the grantee to do what they say. And you look at the results…
Senator Kennedy: Have you ever had a grantee lie to you?
Dr. Fauci: I cannot guarantee that a grantee has not lied to us because you never know.
Senator Kennedy: Yeah. Can we agree if you took President Xie Jin Ping and turned him upside down and shook him, the World Health Organization would fall out of his pocket?
Dr. Fauci: (Chuckles) I don’t think I can answer that question, sir. I’m sorry.
Senator Kennedy: Well, do you think that President Xie Jin Ping has undue influence over the World Health Organization, do you?
Dr. Fauci: I have no way of knowing the influence of the Chinese President over the WHO.
Senator Kennedy: Okay, so you think that the WHO is a completely independent body, and level playing field, call it like you see it. And they really want to get to the bottom of the origin of the virus. Do you believe that?
Dr. Fauci: My interaction with the WHO and Dr. Tedros, the director-general, has been one, that I do believe he’s a person of a high degree of integrity.
Senator Kennedy: I got it. I wanna, I wanna ask one last question. Why did you guys spike—not guys—and ladies, why did you all spike the prior administration’s investigation into the origins of the coronavirus and whether it could have, uh, could have come out of the Wuhan lab?
Dr. Fauci: Sir, I, we did not spike anything in the prior administration. I’m not sure what you mean by spike. We have no influence…
Senator Kennedy: The State Department spiked the prior administration’s, uh, study.
Dr. Fauci: But that has nothing to do with the National Institutes of Health.
Senator Kennedy: They didn’t consult with ya’ll?
Dr. Fauci: They did not.
Senator Kennedy: Did they consult with you, Dr. Collins?
Dr. Francis S. Collins: I read about it in the press this morning.
Senator Kennedy: Doc, they just spiked it without talking to their experts?
Dr. Collins displays dumb obstinance.
Senator Kennedy: You don’t want to answer that one, do you?
Dr. Collins: (Laughs) I just read about it…
Senator Kennedy: Thank you, Madame Chair.
By Timothy Spearman
Maclean’s magazine, once a respected Canadian magazine publication, has now stooped to the most patronizing ad hominem attack against the so-called “vaccine-hesitant.” What has happened to Canada’s flagship magazine, once highly touted internationally for its high standards? Portraying the unvaccinated and vaccine resistant as uninformed children, the hypocritical author of the Maclean’s article, “Vaccinations: No more carrot—bring out the stick,” launches in an unbridled ad hominem attack upon the unvaxxed. One can imagine that the author is as obnoxious as the article and the title he has chosen for the piece. One wonders how much the magazine and the author, Scott Gilmore, have received for this pee-colored yellow journalism piece. Look at the patronizing nature of his ad hominem attack upon the unvaccinated to see the extent of his temerity:
There is an inevitable moment, familiar to all parents and babysitters, when you realize that reasoning with a toddler will only get you so far. Soothing tones and patience may work for a while, but eventually the child once again picks up their bowl, looks you straight in the eye, and slowly pours their cereal onto the floor.
Gilmore insists Canada has come to such a pass, and the “toddlers” in question are the approximately 20% of Canadians who have yet to get even one dose of a CoViD-19 vaccine. Well, Mr. Gilmore, please be our guest and fill right up with the toxic graphene oxide, which your patent ignorance and lack of reading have made you unaware. Please refer to the transcript and video from Stew Peters’s recent interview with former Pfizer employee Karen Kingston “Former Pfizer Employee Confirms Poison Graphene Oxide in VAXXXINE.” The good citizens Gilmore accuses of being children are a lot better informed than you, which is why they have exercised their constitutional right to free choice, which shallow-pated fascists like yourself wish to deny them.
Gilmore then resorts to even more disinformation, for which he has no scientific basis, by stating: “Just as we began to think the CoViD-19 pandemic was coming to an end, a fourth wave has arrived, due almost entirely to the unvaccinated. As a result, restrictions are coming back, masks are returning, and our short precious summer looks like it may become even shorter yet.” In fact, the so-called fourth wave is not caused by the unvaccinated. The proof for this is the fact the vast majority of those falling ill with CoViD-19-like symptoms are in fact vaccinated folk like himself.
He then shows a supreme lack of logical discernment in stating: “Even those of us who [are] fully vaccinated are being forced to mask back up. This is because we have now learned that the new and deadly Delta variant can still be carried and transmitted by the immunized.” Had it occurred to Mr. Gilmore to consider the science, he would have realized, were the CoViD-19 vaccines effective at all, they would afford protection against CoViD-19 in all its variant forms. Yet, it offers no protection whatsoever, so it clearly does not offer any of the immunological protection its proponents claim it does, if indeed the vaccinated are falling ill with CoViD-19 in such numbers.
Gilmore then alludes to how an information and rewards system to encourage people to get vaccinated has proved reasonably effective in Canada, but believes the effectiveness of such an approach has only gone so far, and has not reached the vaccine-hesitant portion of the population. He notes the vaccination rate in July of 2021 has fallen to one-third compared to June, so he believes the proverbial “carrot” has outlived its usefulness and the ‘stick’ is now required. He then adopts the lowest form of rhetoric by resorting to the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack on the unvaccinated, referring to them as “assholes”:
Who are these people? The University of Sydney conducted a study of the unvaccinated in Australia, Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. It found that, in comparison to the population at large, these people tended to have “less agreeable personalities,” be less cooperative with others, more selfish, and more extroverted. (In the vernacular, the term is “assholes”.)
It is shocking to consider the ignorance of a journalist who dismisses out-of-hand allegations about Anthony Fauci being responsible for the pandemic, when there are congressional hearings taking place right now, in which Fauci is being interrogated on the National Institute of Health (NIH) funding of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, done through a sub-agency called EcoHealth, because NIH wished to hide the actual source of funding from investigators who might choose to follow the money. Why does Gilmore even bring this straw man argument into the discussion, when it is a non-sequitur with no logical connection to the opinions of unvaccinated people. In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever unvaccinated people share any of the opinions he outlines below:
Adding to this mix we also have the gullible, people who believe Anthony Fauci created the pandemic, or that Bill Gates is putting tracking chips in the vaccines. And, there are of course the misled. It is not a coincidence that Fox News viewers are far less likely to believe the vaccine works, according to a recent Axios/Ipsos poll.
The hypocrisy of his next rhetorical diatribe, more akin to an unintelligent and uninformed rant, accuses the opposition of the very thing of which he is the most representative. It is truly astounding he does not see he is most accurately referring to himself, when he claims: “it is a well-documented psychological irony that people who hold an unpopular opinion will only dig in further when presented with evidence to the contrary.” It is truly astounding what he accuses the opposition of when nearly every word could be turned upon him as easily as a rabid dog might turn upon their master:
Facts, patiently explained in infographics and with simpler and simpler soundbites, do not reach these people. And if they do, they are drowned out by the cynical clamouring of conservative media. Worse yet, it is a well-documented psychological irony that people who hold an unpopular opinion will only dig in further when presented with evidence to the contrary.
Gilmore then has the temerity to actually criticize people for not allowing themselves to be cajoled and coerced into taking vaccines by way of bribe acceptance. It’s clear why that is, since he probably accepted long ago a handsome payout to churn out the kind of pro-vaccine drivel he has written in this editorial opinion piece. Examine if you will what Gilmore says with respect to those who have the integrity to not be enticed into taking a vaccine through the issuance of an incentive or perk:
And bribes won’t work either. Officials in Ohio tried to lure people to vaccination centers with lottery prizes and college scholarships. But researchers from the Boston University School of Medicine found rates actually declined. A survey released by the Kaiser Family Foundation found in June showed that among the unvaccinated, only 9 per cent would consider getting the jab when offered $20. Even $100 would only sway 14 per cent.
It’s called integrity, Mr. Gilmore. You may not have heard much about it in the circles you run in, but some people still have it. They refuse to be cajoled into going along with something they fundamentally disagree with on the basis of an inducement and enticement. We never asked for your opinion by the way, but since you’ve given your unwelcome opinion, you’ll have to forgive us for resorting to reductio as absurdum to point out the numerous fallacies and non-sequiturs in your faulty reasoning.
You then suggest that the ‘stick’ is the only way to force the unvaccinated into compliance, which you see as the solution to ending this pandemic. It is not going to end the “pandemic.” The authorities will prolong the “pandemic” as long as they see fit. Even if the whole population is vaccinated, governments and health authorities will tell us a new variant has emerged for which another vaccine will be required. If we refuse to comply and take the latest recommended vaccine, our travel passports will not be updated and our travel privileges revoked. Yet, you still falsely insist vaccination is the answer to ending this pandemic:
However, that same survey revealed that the holdouts are far more motivated if they were denied access to large family gatherings (40 per cent), or flights (41 per cent). For these people threats work far better than bribes and patient reassurance. Here lies the solution to finally bringing this pandemic to an end.
It is pretty obvious Gilmore is shilling for someone—vaccine companies or special interests—when he is advocating tightening the noose on anyone who refuses the vaccine, so they are restricted from accessing public places, or from boarding planes, buses, or trains. He even advocates for restrictions being imposed on interprovincial or interstate travel, so the unvaccinated cannot travel beyond the boundaries of their state:
To begin with, now that the vast majority of Canadians are vaccinated, we should close the airport gates to those who aren’t. If you want to fly, you need a vaccine. A form of this already exists in some places—if you want to board a flight to northern Manitoba, for example. The same rules should be applied to trains, concerts, even restaurants. We could even go so far as to impose it as a requirement for interprovincial travel.
Such endorsements fall completely in line with UN district boundaries established under UN Agenda 21, which are meant to replace previous boundaries defined by state and provincial boundary lines. The plan is for citizens to be relocated into large megacities, while smaller towns and cities would be demolished so that such areas could be restored to nature. Such plans are conceived in accordance with sustainable development guidelines intended to reduce the ecological footprint of humans, while restricting their movements and available living spaces. With the artificial creation of disease threats, it is possible to impose even greater restrictions on people’s movements and hold the population captive within zones defined as districts. The term “district” is meant to deprive them of any sense of regional pride, which might pose a threat to the leaders who wish to keep them under their control.
Gilmore then endorses the fascist approach adopted by the French government under Macron, who advocates restrictions being imposed on the unvaccinated to access all public venues, airports and travel depots:
This approach is already working in Europe. When French President Emmanuel Macron announced vaccine passes would be required to enter restaurants, hospitals, shopping centers or to take a train, 2.2 million new appointments were booked within the following 48 hours. In Italy, 5 hour long lines formed immediately after similar restrictions were announced.
Gilmore insists the approach of the French and Italian governments is working, when nothing could be further from the truth. Massive protests have been held throughout France, Italy, and the UK over their governments’ calls for mandatory vaccinations and vaccine passports, without which people are told they cannot access bars, restaurants, cafes, and other public venues, while being denied access to airports, bus terminals, train stations, airplanes, and public transportation vehicles.
Gilmore then argues this might require some form of standardized certification. He then makes life sound so easy and convenient once the travel pass is issued without considering the potential harm done and adverse reactions occurring as a result of the vaccine. “All that would require is a visit to a vaccination centre, a doctor, or possibly even city hall where you could show some ID and your proof of vaccination, and then be given something similar to a temporary driver’s license,” he argues.
He then lambastes and lampoons Canadian veteran politician Randy Hillier for his opposition to CoViD-19 vaccines and vaccine passports, vilifying him for suggesting this will lead to a segregated country, when clearly that is precisely what Gilmore and kind are calling for. Gilmore says of Hillier in another ad hominem attack: “Randy Hillier, an Ontario politician infamous for being even too much for Doug Ford’s conservatives, claims that withholding access to the unvaccinated is akin to Nazi policies and “one step removed from extermination.” Why he finds Hillier’s dark auguries so laughable is perplexing, when he himself displays complete disregard for the rights of unvaccinated people, whom he wrongfully believes pose a health threat to the vaccinated. There are many respected scientists and doctors who contend the opposite is the case, with recipients of Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines shedding spike proteins, which are alleged to have an adverse health impact on the unvaccinated. However, Gilmore, will not listen to the opposition. Like most so-called liberals who self-righteously believe they are on the right side of the issues and history, they ignore what anyone who disagrees with them says, which is not only undemocratic, but against what our culture has always regarded as fair-play, a virtue that has gone by the wayside since the last federal election in the U.S. was stolen.
If that isn’t enough, he refers to unvaccinated people who don’t agree with him as “idiots” and “frauds.” It is truly astounding how hypocrites are so blinded by self-righteousness they fail to see the very thing they accuse others of are the things they manifest in spades. Talk about the pot calling the kettle a darker shade of black. Someone could just as easily apply the words he iterates against others to him: “I could point out that everything in our society already contains element of segregation (No shoes, no shirt, no service), but there is simply no point in trying to reason with idiots or frauds who might believe this nonsense, and I won’t try here.”
This fascist should be appointed as one of the guards in the quarantine/concentration camps—which some allege are already being set up—since he seems to be salivating and foaming at the mouth over his repeated desire to implement the proverbial “stick.” Hillier is not so far off with hacks like Gilmore operating in the newspapers of the nation. The article not only ends with Gilmore hurling more unfair and uncalled-for ad hominem abuse on what he refers to as “vaccine holdouts” and “fools,” but he even calls for draconian and fascist measures to compel them to submit to fascists like himself: “We need to begin treating the vaccine holdouts as the fools they are. It is not fair that reasonable and responsible Canadians should pay the price for their deadly selfishness. No more soothing tones and patience. Time for the stick.”
See you at the FEMA camp, Herr Gilmore. We look forward to hearing your indoctrination lectures and your patriotic songs to the Vaterland. Jawohl!
Scott Gilmore, “Vaccinations: No more carrot—bring out the stick,” August 3, 2021, macleans.ca/opinion/vaccinations-no-more-carrot-bring-out-the-stick