Corbett Report On Fauci.

[ANNEE]

Seek and you can find. 

Have you tried seeking all the good they’ve done?

[ANNEE]

As far as eugenics goes — humans have no problem using genetic science on animals to enhance them. Or plants and other living things. 

First keep God out of it cuz god has nothing to do with science. 

Genetic science has never stopped. It’s just been rebranded. Renamed cuz eugenics eludes to racism and ethnic cleanding.

[quintessentone]

By any chance have you read his latest book "Source Code"?
This book is about his childhood up to the time he developed Microsoft. He certainly wasn't living a middle class lifestyle. He attended the exclusive school Lakeside.


https://www.lakesideschool.org/admission...ancial-aid
Current tuition $52,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakeside_School_(Seattle)

Here's some info about his father who established his own law firm and sat on the board of a number of different boards and I am certain that Costco paid him well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates_Sr.

His father most notably sat on the board of Planned Parenthood and Bill was raised in a family that was eugenics orientated.

As for vaccines Bill Gates has sizable investments in many pharmaceutical companies via his Gates foundation.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1021577629748680000

The Gates Foundation has bought stakes in drug makers and that was in 2022. He invested in BioNTech in 2019 before the plandemic. That was $55 million, which is not chump change.
It only makes sense because he probably can have closer connections to Big Pharma so that they can develop vaccines for diseases that he wants to target.


https://stockcircle.com/portfolio/bill-g...ansactions

The Gates foundation has been caught doing some naughty things with their vaccines.


https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinfor...erid=81838

From your own source:

"The first Pfizer trade was made in Q3 2002. Since then Bill Gates bought shares six more times and sold shares on seven occasions. The investor sold all their shares in Q4 2023 and doesn't own any shares in Pfizer anymore."

Seems hCG in the tetanus vaccination in Africa was a misunderstanding:

"Claims that tetanus vaccines in Africa were contaminated with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) to cause infertility are false and have been repeatedly debunked by fact-checkers, the World Health Organization (WHO), and independent scientific analysis. 
The rumor originated from a misunderstanding of a 1994 Indian study where researchers developed a Talwar vaccine, a reversible fertility control method that conjugated tetanus toxoid with hCG.  This experimental vaccine was never used in public health campaigns or distributed by the WHO. 

During the 2014 vaccination campaigns in Kenya, allegations arose that tetanus vaccines contained hCG. However, investigations revealed that:

• Labs initially testing for hCG used home pregnancy kits or tested samples as human tissue rather than vaccines, leading to scientifically invalid results. 
  
• When proper laboratory tests were conducted on thousands of vials, including those from a lab chosen by the Vatican, no hCG was found. 
  
• A joint commission in Kenya found that while a few specific open vials tested positive, 56 out of 59 vials tested negative, and the routine immunization program was deemed safe. 
  

The widespread belief that WHO or UNICEF intentionally sterilized women through tetanus vaccines is a conspiracy theory with no scientific basis. The tetanus vaccine remains a critical tool for preventing maternal and neonatal tetanus, a disease that kills thousands of mothers and babies annually." (LLM)

[Thoughtful3]

I notice that you always quote fact-checkers. Another book I can recommend is "Fact- Checking The Fact-Checkers"
How the Left Hijacked and Weaponized The Fact-Checking Industry." by Matt Palumbo.

Intro "A casual political observer may take the "fact-checker" label at face value. But the entire industry [with little exception] serves as a trojan horse to justify censorship for the political left."

"In 2014 there were 44 fact checker organizations in the U.S.- and by June 2021 there were 341."

That is an amazing increase and just when the Covid jabs were rolling out.

There's a lot of mental gymnastics around all of this and one does have to consider that Gates does fund a lot of news organizations, which also employ the fact checkers..


https://www.gatesfoundation.org/our-work...rtnerships

He provides numerous examples where the Fact- Checkers outright lie to spin a specific narrative.

He even has a section on flip flop Fauci about whether masks work or should or should not be worn.

Anyway this book will help you to understand that one cannot take Fact-Checkers as accurate.

[ANNEE]

There is a list of recommended fact checkers. Palumbo is not one of them. 

He’s basically MAGA. Why would anyone other than MAGA’s take his word over all the other recommended fact-checkers 

“Matt Palumbo, as a content manager for Bongino.com and author of "Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers," focuses on arguing that mainstream fact-checkers (like PolitiFact) are politically biased against conservatives, including Dan Bongino. 

His work is aimed at countering, rather than verifying, the mainstream fact-checking of Bongino. Here is an overview of his approach:

Palumbo’s Approach to Fact-Checking Bongino

• Challenging "Missing Context" Rulings: Palumbo argues that mainstream fact-checkers use "missing context" or "false" labels unfairly to throttle traffic to conservative sites.
  
•  
  
• Defending Specific Contentions: He has argued that fact-checks on Bongino are often nitpicky or incorrect, particularly regarding stories about figures like Nancy Pelosi or COVID-19 information.
  
•  
  
• "Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers": In his book and articles, he alleges that the fact-checking industry is a partisan tool aimed at censoring conservative voices, rather than a neutral arbiter of truth.
  
•  
  
• Focus on Process over Accuracy: His work generally focuses on highlighting the alleged bias in the process of fact-checking rather than providing independent, neutral verification of Bongino's claims. 
  

Context on Mainstream Fact-Checking of Bongino

• PolitiFact Rulings: PolitiFact has flagged several of Bongino’s posts on platforms like Facebook and Instagram as false or misleading.
  
•  
  
• Specific Examples: PolitiFact labeled as "Mostly False" a claim that California had extra congressional reps due to the inclusion of undocumented immigrants, a story highlighted by Palumbo. 
  

In summary, Palumbo’s work is characterized as a "fact-check of the fact-checkers", positioning himself as a counter-narrative to mainstream assessments of Bongino’s content, arguing that the initial fact-checks are biased. 

 https://www.google.com/search?q=hiw+accu...fId=ChxjMe

[quintessentone]

I notice that you always quote fact-checkers. Another book I can recommend is "Fact- Checking The Fact-Checkers"
How the Left Hijacked and Weaponized The Fact-Checking Industry." by Matt Palumbo.

Intro "A casual political observer may take the "fact-checker" label at face value. But the entire industry [with little exception] serves as a trojan horse to justify censorship for the political left."

"In 2014 there were 44 fact checker organizations in the U.S.- and by June 2021 there were 341."

That is an amazing increase and just when the Covid jabs were rolling out.

There's a lot of mental gymnastics around all of this and one does have to consider that Gates does fund a lot of news organizations, which also employ the fact checkers..


https://www.gatesfoundation.org/our-work...rtnerships

He provides numerous examples where the Fact- Checkers outright lie to spin a specific narrative.

He even has a section on flip flop Fauci about whether masks work or should or should not be worn.

Anyway this book will help you to understand that one cannot take Fact-Checkers as accurate.

When specific fact-checkers are proven right time and time again, then you really can't cherry pick the fact checker that confirms your bias, now can you?

"Snopes and PolitiFact are widely regarded as highly accurate, with studies showing they reach consistent verdicts on the same claims.  Research indicates that when these two organizations check identical statements, they demonstrate high agreement on the fundamental truth or falsehood of the claim, despite using different rating scales (Snopes uses a five-point scale from True to False, while PolitiFact uses the Truth-O-Meter). 
Other notable accurate fact-checking organizations include:

• FactCheck.org: A nonpartisan, nonprofit project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center that monitors U.S. political accuracy. 
  
• The Washington Post Fact Checker: Known for its "Pinocchio" rating scale, it is considered a trusted source for political statement verification. 
  
• AP Fact Check: Produced by the Associated Press, it focuses on debunking false and misleading claims in current news. 
  
• Media Bias/Fact Check: A resource that rates media sources for bias and factual reporting accuracy, helping users identify reliable outlets. 
  

While major fact-checkers generally agree on obvious truths and falsehoods, discrepancies can occur in borderline cases due to differences in selection criteria (which claims they choose to check) and scaling methods (how they rate the degree of deception).  For instance, one study found that while PolitiFact and The Washington Post agreed on the bottom-line veracity of checked statements, they often selected different statements to check in the first place. " (LLM)

---

"Snopes has fact-checked multiple viral claims regarding Dr. Anthony Fauci, consistently finding allegations of funding gain-of-function research that caused the pandemic or ordering cruel tests on beagles to be false or misleading.  Snopes notes that emails cited as evidence of bioweapon creation were copied from a 2005 study on SARS-CoV-1, and animal testing contracts were for legitimate HIV and hepatitis therapeutics rather than "torture." 
The Corbett Report, rated by Media Bias/Fact Check as Conspiracy-Pseudoscience with Low factual reporting, features interviews with figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that promote unverified conspiracy theories.  These narratives allege that Fauci fabricated pandemics like Zika and swine flu to secure funding and that he suppressed science to maintain control, claims that contradict mainstream scientific consensus and fact-checking organizations. " (LLM)

---

"There is no "Fauci Coverup".

https://andersen-lab.com/fact-check-ther...i-coverup/

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/sciche...to-claims/

[Waterglass]

Thought there was some rather illuminating factual info in this Corbett Report on Fauci and apparently RFK Jr's new book is now on the bestseller list.


• The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health


Do confess I haven't read it yet (hats off to those that have) but thpught the author raised some truly compelling points in the interview below and literally everybody should watch it (because it involves everyone).



[Image: https://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/i...9a37c9.jpg]




Whatever your thoughts on the pandemic (or origins of it) then would say this interview is a really important one as it brings up the role of intelligence agencies and some pretty intriguing revelations made about Fauci's bio-weapon antics in China and the involvement of the CIA and DARPA.

The potential (and utter) corruption of regulatory agencies via the mechanism of 'regulatory capture' is also covered as is big pharma's 'precalculated and monetized response' to the pandemic.




Quote:



Would be interested in folk's opinions on points raised in the vid - especially the mechanism in which tax payer funded regulatory agencies (like the EPA) become 'sock-puppets' to the private industries they are meant to regulate.

[Image: https://denyignorance.com//images/addsmilies/beer.gif]

I havent read his book as my money is on China, Wuhan Lab, Bill Gates and Fauchi + the following: [All seems to align with your write]  Dr. Xiangguo Qiu. She disappears [BEFORE COVID-19] for several years and then reappears inside China.  

Chinese researcher escorted from infectious disease lab amid RCMP investigation
Public Health Agency of Canada describes it as a possible 'policy breach,' no risk to Canadian public
Karen Pauls · CBC News · Posted: Jul 14, 2019 4:50 PM EDT | Last Updated: July 14, 2019

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/...-1.5211567

[Thoughtful3]

Monday is the deadline - May 11th.

https://www.wric.com/news/rand-paul-push...s-expires/

[ANNEE]

Monday is the deadline - May 11th.

https://www.wric.com/news/rand-paul-push...s-expires/

Love this comment from Diane Egan. 

Rand Paul started criticizing Dr. Fauci last year about his COVID-19 statements. My blood pressure went up 30 points. All I could think of was, “What the fuck does Rand Paul know about epidemiology?”

Vanity Fair: Anthony Fauci is a veteran immunologist who has spent 50 years protecting the health of the American public. Senator Rand Paul is an ophthalmologist who, since 2005, has not been certified to practice medicine by any board recognized by the state of Kentucky, and reportedly has not been certified by any medical board at all since 2011. Yet strangely, since the coronavirus began, Paul has decided that he knows more about infectious diseases than Fauci, . . .

https://medium.com/duffys-tavern/what-do...6eb88a4a03

[quintessentone]

Love this comment from Diane Egan. 

Rand Paul started criticizing Dr. Fauci last year about his COVID-19 statements. My blood pressure went up 30 points. All I could think of was, “What the fuck does Rand Paul know about epidemiology?”




https://medium.com/duffys-tavern/what-do...6eb88a4a03

I recall the situation changing rapidly - day to day - and my assessment of Fauci is that the mutating virus was always one step ahead of him and everyone and he did the best he could do with what information and/or misinformation he had at the time. Ball of confusion at the onset of that pandemic, worldwide.

--------

"Whether Dr. Anthony Fauci was "right" is a subject of intense debate, with assessments varying based on whether one focuses on his epidemiological predictions, his handling of public health guidance, or his political alignment. 
Critics argue that Fauci was frequently wrong or misleading, citing specific instances where his statements were contradicted by evidence or later admitted to be inaccurate.  Key criticisms include:

• Mask Guidance: He initially advised against public mask use in early 2020, a stance critics call a "noble lie" or manipulation, before reversing course as understanding of asymptomatic spread grew. 
  
• Pandemic Origins: He consistently dismissed the lab-leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory, a position he later acknowledged was not fully accurate after admitting the lab leak theory was plausible. 
  
• Scientific Claims: He faced scrutiny for stating that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, a claim that documents and former officials later disputed. 
  
• Predictions: His March 2020 prediction regarding total death counts was notably higher than the final outcome, though he correctly identified the virus's potential severity.
  

Supporters and fact-checkers contend that Fauci was largely correct and that his early caution was scientifically grounded given the limited data available at the start of the pandemic. 

• Context of Early Statements: Fact-checkers note that when Fauci downplayed risks in early 2020, he consistently added caveats that the situation could change, unlike political figures who dismissed the threat. 
  
• Policy Effectiveness: Experts affirm that the stay-at-home orders and travel restrictions he supported were effective in slowing the spread of COVID-19. 
  
• Accountability: During a 2024 congressional hearing, Fauci admitted to missteps, such as confirming that social distancing rules were arbitrary and that his staff had conflicts of interest, demonstrating a willingness to correct the record rather than maintain a facade of infallibility. 
  

Ultimately, Fauci’s legacy is polarized: he is viewed by many conservatives as a dishonest figure who misled the public, while many public health experts and fact-checkers view him as a cautious scientist who navigated an unprecedented crisis with evolving knowledge." (LLM)