Covid Vaccine
- Thread starter jitter77
- Start date
Someone needs prison time, that's insane.
Biden doesn't know what day of the week it is.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,058
- Reaction score
- 11,761
- Points
- 113
Greetings all,
I have stayed away from this thread for the past month because it is not actually very useful.
My first post in this thread was about the damage this "vaccine" was likely to cause.
In the previous thread about Covid, my first posts were about this being like the flu. I tried to regularly post "its the flu, bro."
I want to apologize. I was wrong in my commentary and thoughts.
It is clear that the costs of the Covid shots will include unintended consequences, serious adverse affects, deaths and more, all the while giant pharma has been thefting dollars from governments around the globe. We have not yet begun to understand the damage that happened on our watch. It is clearly criminal in intent with huge societal costs that have not yet begun to be calculated.
It is also clear that this Covid is now not like the flu, but more like a cold. In fact, it shares many characteristics with the various cold viruses. The weak minded sheeple have been helped to gain irrational fears of a common human affliction. Many good intentions have morphed into fear-mongering and groupthink that have truly harmed people globally. Again, that happened on our watch, during our time. The real costs will be measured generationally.
For those that can get some distance from this "crisis" that really wasn't, perhaps you can notice the same emergency themes that have been common with hugely negative political decisions from the past generation: Weapons of Mass Destruction that didn't exist and Global Warming that hasn't. The Covid response, similarly, has been to move massive global resources to the net benefit of a small group of corporate interests that --- you guessed it --- were/are aligned with various governments/regulators. The people, or those we are supposed to believe are the potential victims, are the ones that are paying the costs of this theatre. Lives, opportunities and real dollars have all been washed down the drain with the help of willing governments that took from the many and gave to the few net/net.
I do not have a message of hope, because the response of the vast majority of people, the middle section of global society, has been pathetic to all three issues, and has supported the wasteful use of human and capital resources that could have had much better effect. The military/industrial complex has been joined by the pharma/regulatory complex and the evolving Climate Change/Carbon Capture complex. Because bullshit baffles brains, still.
This is all happening on our watch, during the most dismal of human eras.
I have stayed away from this thread for the past month because it is not actually very useful.
My first post in this thread was about the damage this "vaccine" was likely to cause.
In the previous thread about Covid, my first posts were about this being like the flu. I tried to regularly post "its the flu, bro."
I want to apologize. I was wrong in my commentary and thoughts.
It is clear that the costs of the Covid shots will include unintended consequences, serious adverse affects, deaths and more, all the while giant pharma has been thefting dollars from governments around the globe. We have not yet begun to understand the damage that happened on our watch. It is clearly criminal in intent with huge societal costs that have not yet begun to be calculated.
It is also clear that this Covid is now not like the flu, but more like a cold. In fact, it shares many characteristics with the various cold viruses. The weak minded sheeple have been helped to gain irrational fears of a common human affliction. Many good intentions have morphed into fear-mongering and groupthink that have truly harmed people globally. Again, that happened on our watch, during our time. The real costs will be measured generationally.
For those that can get some distance from this "crisis" that really wasn't, perhaps you can notice the same emergency themes that have been common with hugely negative political decisions from the past generation: Weapons of Mass Destruction that didn't exist and Global Warming that hasn't. The Covid response, similarly, has been to move massive global resources to the net benefit of a small group of corporate interests that --- you guessed it --- were/are aligned with various governments/regulators. The people, or those we are supposed to believe are the potential victims, are the ones that are paying the costs of this theatre. Lives, opportunities and real dollars have all been washed down the drain with the help of willing governments that took from the many and gave to the few net/net.
I do not have a message of hope, because the response of the vast majority of people, the middle section of global society, has been pathetic to all three issues, and has supported the wasteful use of human and capital resources that could have had much better effect. The military/industrial complex has been joined by the pharma/regulatory complex and the evolving Climate Change/Carbon Capture complex. Because bullshit baffles brains, still.
This is all happening on our watch, during the most dismal of human eras.
The mandates should be done now.
www.cnn.com
Biden administration to withdraw Covid-19 vaccination and testing regulation aimed at large businesses
The Biden administration is withdrawing its Covid-19 vaccination and testing regulation aimed at large businesses, following the Supreme Court's decision to block the rule earlier this month.
Last edited:
Cms still has theirs for healthcare.The mandates should be done now.
View attachment 7925
View attachment 7926
Biden administration to withdraw Covid-19 vaccination and testing regulation aimed at large businesses
The Biden administration is withdrawing its Covid-19 vaccination and testing regulation aimed at large businesses, following the Supreme Court's decision to block the rule earlier this month.
So there hope?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,505
- Reaction score
- 22,303
- Points
- 113
The submission rag of the covidians. Which they will still be wearing 2 years from now.
I’m lazy. Didn’t find Indy post, but I wouldn’t go that far or think it’s comparable.
That was their flag if you will, a symbol of power. That said ****** up group that needed what they got. But non the less.
I see folks that wear face condemns in two ways.
1. Whatever floats your boat I really don’t care what people do.
2. Sheep. Especially when it’s someone in their car along, or someone I’ve seen (and have) for months with a cloth mask that just recently is wearing an N95. - sheep.
“You do you, I’ll do me”. Just leave at that and we are good.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,505
- Reaction score
- 22,303
- Points
- 113
I just find it funny. It gives me a good chuckle. But yeah, don't even say **** to me about not wearing a mask. After 2 years,I'm going scorched earth in my response!
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
I think you have to go with the odds. The myocarditis complication is rare and mostly in young people (probably because of a stronger immune reaction). Severe covid in an immunosuppressed person is much more likely to happen right now.
See, I have no issue with those that want to continue wearing them, however I do have an issue with those wanting to dictate wearing them, especially the kids.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
- Reaction score
- 17,060
- Points
- 113
Tomato - tom-ato.... Would you like your enlarged heart and all that comes with it from the virus or the shot? If I get better protection from future variants that are sure as hell to be in the pipeline from the virus, I prefer the virus.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,505
- Reaction score
- 22,303
- Points
- 113
It may just be my area or my “circle” but we all are on the same page. No or says **** to one another. Again you do you and I’ll do me.
That phrase is me. Leave me the **** alone and we are fine. More than fine, I’m the most outgoing nice **** I know.
The shots work. And the media tried to smear him as anti-vax...but...he...was...jabbed.
“Anti-Vax” Olympic Gold Medallist Dies of COVID (But He Was Vaccinated)
Sky News publishes massively misleading headline.
summit.news
This is interesting.
rescue.substack.com
But tragically, during this pandemic, the answer to, “What are you doing for others?”given by institutional sponsors of covid-19 scientific research—and the lead researcher himself—was: Nothing. They were doing nothing for others. Instead, they knowingly and callously mounted a deadly assault on humanity. And as a result, hundreds of thousands of people are dead—having perished unnecessarily.
Dr. Hill and the research team produced their meta-analysis of ivermectin in January, 2021. The paper considered eighteen studies on the thirty-five-year-old drug—which has been safely used since 1987 to eradicate parasitic pandemics in low- and middle-income countries. The study concluded that the use of ivermectin resulted in reduced inflammation and a more rapid elimination of the Sars-Cov-2 virus from the body. Six of the eighteen trials showed that the risk of death from covid-19 was 75 percent lower in patients who had moderate to severe disease.
This was absolutely tremendous news. Hundreds of thousands of lives were about to be saved from the ravages of covid-19. Said Dr. Hill at the time to the Financial Times, “The purpose of this report is to forewarn people that this is coming: get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve [ivermectin]. We need to be ready.”
When Dr. Hill made that statement—to gear up for the worldwide distribution of ivermectin—nearly 15,000 people were dying across the world every single day. Dr. Hill continued, “Vaccination is central to the response to the epidemic. But [ivermectin] might help reduce infection rates by making people less infectious and it might reduce death rates by treating the viral infection.”
But just one month later, Dr. Hill’s original, positive study conclusions on ivermectin quite literally fell off the rails. And so did the fortunes of the thousands who had no idea then that they were stuck on the tracks with a freight train barreling towards them—unable to get out of harm’s way because help had been hijacked.
Dr. Tess Lawrie, a physician, independent WHO researcher, and Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, had heard that Dr. Hill was about to change his conclusions about ivermectin’s efficacy. So she called him on Zoom to find out why—and recorded the entire conversation.
During that Zoom call, Dr. Hill confessed to Dr. Lawrie that he was changing his study conclusions from positive to negative—because he was under pressure from his funding sponsors to do so.
Wait, what? His sponsors told him to change the study conclusions? NOT the data? What in the hell was going on?
Lawrie was furious.
We know that the studies considered in Hill’s soon-to-be-revised ivermectin paper did not change. But now the paper was going to conclude that because most of those studies in the meta-analysis contained “low-certainty evidence,” the positive results in the first iteration of the paper were now going to be characterized as being of “low certainty.”
The following excerpts of Andrew Hill’s conversation with Tess Lawrie, recently printed in media stories, are from Robert F. Kennedy’s book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Children’s Health Defense).
......
To be continued...
“I Don’t Know How You Sleep at Night”
A nightmarish true story of how a researcher who could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives mysteriously decided not to.
“I Don’t Know How You Sleep at Night”
A nightmarish true story of how a researcher who could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives mysteriously decided not to.
rescue.substack.com
“Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’”
~ Martin Luther King Jr.
Answers to this question have changed the course of history.- During World War II, Oskar Schindler’s answer was to bribe Nazi officials with liquor and other luxury items to save his Jewish factory workers from deportation to Nazi work camps. He saved about 1,100 people—and depleted his entire fortune to do so.
- In the mid-twentieth century, agriculturist Norman Borlaug responded by saving billions of people from starvation through his development of a high-yield, disease-resistant wheat. He shared his discovery with Mexico, Pakistan, India, and throughout Asia and Africa—doubling food production and decreasing the rates of starvation.
- Harriet Tubman’s answer is legendary. Tubman was an escaped slave who returned to Maryland on numerous perilous journeys to bring other slaves to freedom. She did so over and over again at great risk to her own life and freedom. She also served as a spy to the Union army during the Civil War.
- In the 1960s, James Harrison learned that his blood contained an unusual antibody combination that could be used to prevent a potentially fatal blood condition in babies. So Harrison’s response was to donate blood once a week, every week, until 2018—for a total of 1,173 blood donations. His blood helped create 3 million doses of the Anti-D injection and saved 2.4 million babies.
But tragically, during this pandemic, the answer to, “What are you doing for others?”given by institutional sponsors of covid-19 scientific research—and the lead researcher himself—was: Nothing. They were doing nothing for others. Instead, they knowingly and callously mounted a deadly assault on humanity. And as a result, hundreds of thousands of people are dead—having perished unnecessarily.
Here’s the wretched story.
In late 2020, Dr. Andrew Hill, a researcher at the University of Liverpool, was leading a team of researchers studying the drug ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19. Their work was funded by UNITAID—a global health agency hosted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and supported (in large part) by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Unitaid’s main donors are France, the United Kingdom, Norway, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea, Chile, and Japan.Dr. Hill and the research team produced their meta-analysis of ivermectin in January, 2021. The paper considered eighteen studies on the thirty-five-year-old drug—which has been safely used since 1987 to eradicate parasitic pandemics in low- and middle-income countries. The study concluded that the use of ivermectin resulted in reduced inflammation and a more rapid elimination of the Sars-Cov-2 virus from the body. Six of the eighteen trials showed that the risk of death from covid-19 was 75 percent lower in patients who had moderate to severe disease.
This was absolutely tremendous news. Hundreds of thousands of lives were about to be saved from the ravages of covid-19. Said Dr. Hill at the time to the Financial Times, “The purpose of this report is to forewarn people that this is coming: get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve [ivermectin]. We need to be ready.”
When Dr. Hill made that statement—to gear up for the worldwide distribution of ivermectin—nearly 15,000 people were dying across the world every single day. Dr. Hill continued, “Vaccination is central to the response to the epidemic. But [ivermectin] might help reduce infection rates by making people less infectious and it might reduce death rates by treating the viral infection.”
But just one month later, Dr. Hill’s original, positive study conclusions on ivermectin quite literally fell off the rails. And so did the fortunes of the thousands who had no idea then that they were stuck on the tracks with a freight train barreling towards them—unable to get out of harm’s way because help had been hijacked.
Dr. Tess Lawrie, a physician, independent WHO researcher, and Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, had heard that Dr. Hill was about to change his conclusions about ivermectin’s efficacy. So she called him on Zoom to find out why—and recorded the entire conversation.
During that Zoom call, Dr. Hill confessed to Dr. Lawrie that he was changing his study conclusions from positive to negative—because he was under pressure from his funding sponsors to do so.
Wait, what? His sponsors told him to change the study conclusions? NOT the data? What in the hell was going on?
Lawrie was furious.
We know that the studies considered in Hill’s soon-to-be-revised ivermectin paper did not change. But now the paper was going to conclude that because most of those studies in the meta-analysis contained “low-certainty evidence,” the positive results in the first iteration of the paper were now going to be characterized as being of “low certainty.”
But that’s not how it works, folks.
According to Dr. Pierre Kory, President and Chief Medical Officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, “People need to understand that WHO treatment recommendation guidelines routinely include low, moderate, and high bias. They use all data to formulate their recommendations.”The following excerpts of Andrew Hill’s conversation with Tess Lawrie, recently printed in media stories, are from Robert F. Kennedy’s book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Children’s Health Defense).
......
To be continued...
Continued...
Forty million reasons to silence the irrefutable evidence for ivermectin. Forty million reasons to let folks take their inevitable place on the train tracks with permanent adhesive on their shoes.
Hill’s “six-weeks” has now turned into nearly one year—a year during which Hill threw out most of the studies in the original paper, and proclaimed that ivermectin offers no mortality benefit. “There is no longer evidence for clinical benefits after removal of trials at risk of bias or medical fraud,” Hill wrote recently.
Killer words.
And that, dear reader, is why in late February, 2021, when the WHO received Dr. Hill’s paper with the sponsors’ conclusions written in, they decided not to recommend ivermectin for covid until long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled studies could be conducted.
And that is why nearly one million people have died since Dr. Lawrie’s conversation with Hill took place. These innocent people were doomed—stuck on the tracks, unable to get out of the way of the racing covid-19 freight train.
The BonSens citizens group in France commissioned an analysis of the text in Dr. Andrew Hill’s preprint paper and the finding was that it was highly likely that there were two and possibly three “shadow authors” involved in manipulating the text, with the intent to undermine the positive evidence on IVM. This issue is now the subject of legal action in France.
Other jurisdictions are also readying their cases against Dr. Hill.
Certainly, justice will not bring back loved ones who were sacrificed for love—of money. But it might possibly save those just alighting on the tracks.
There’s one more thing you should know.
One week prior to Dr. Andrew Hill’s pre-print posting of his revised paper, the University of Liverpool, where Hill works, received a $40 million grant from Unitaid to study infectious diseases—Dr. Hill’s specialty.Forty million reasons to silence the irrefutable evidence for ivermectin. Forty million reasons to let folks take their inevitable place on the train tracks with permanent adhesive on their shoes.
Hill’s “six-weeks” has now turned into nearly one year—a year during which Hill threw out most of the studies in the original paper, and proclaimed that ivermectin offers no mortality benefit. “There is no longer evidence for clinical benefits after removal of trials at risk of bias or medical fraud,” Hill wrote recently.
Killer words.
And that, dear reader, is why in late February, 2021, when the WHO received Dr. Hill’s paper with the sponsors’ conclusions written in, they decided not to recommend ivermectin for covid until long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled studies could be conducted.
And that is why nearly one million people have died since Dr. Lawrie’s conversation with Hill took place. These innocent people were doomed—stuck on the tracks, unable to get out of the way of the racing covid-19 freight train.
Like Oskar Schindler, Harriet Tubman, Norman Bourlag, and James Harrison…
Unitaid, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the WHO, and Dr. Andrew Hill could have done what was best for humanity. They could have looked at the unassailable medical evidence for cheap, exceedingly safe, readily available ivermectin with benevolent, humane eyes. Doing so would have certainly altered the oceans of revenue that were forecast to come from the vaccines and the novel anti-viral therapies made by Big Pharma. (No anti-viral pill can match the high safety profile of ivermectin, or its extraordinary efficacy against covid-19.) But at the same time, it would have reshaped the fates of the thousands who will never take another breath; because though their lives could have been saved, money became monarch…and the sentence was passed.Epilogue
This is not over. Not by a long shot. The courts will have something to say about these murders that occurred (and are still occurring) throughout the world.The BonSens citizens group in France commissioned an analysis of the text in Dr. Andrew Hill’s preprint paper and the finding was that it was highly likely that there were two and possibly three “shadow authors” involved in manipulating the text, with the intent to undermine the positive evidence on IVM. This issue is now the subject of legal action in France.
Other jurisdictions are also readying their cases against Dr. Hill.
Certainly, justice will not bring back loved ones who were sacrificed for love—of money. But it might possibly save those just alighting on the tracks.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,058
- Reaction score
- 11,761
- Points
- 113
Thanks TimThis is interesting.
“I Don’t Know How You Sleep at Night”
A nightmarish true story of how a researcher who could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives mysteriously decided not to.
“I Don’t Know How You Sleep at Night”
A nightmarish true story of how a researcher who could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives mysteriously decided not to.“Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’”
~ Martin Luther King Jr.
Answers to this question have changed the course of history.
These stories illuminate the very best of humanity.
- During World War II, Oskar Schindler’s answer was to bribe Nazi officials with liquor and other luxury items to save his Jewish factory workers from deportation to Nazi work camps. He saved about 1,100 people—and depleted his entire fortune to do so.
- In the mid-twentieth century, agriculturist Norman Borlaug responded by saving billions of people from starvation through his development of a high-yield, disease-resistant wheat. He shared his discovery with Mexico, Pakistan, India, and throughout Asia and Africa—doubling food production and decreasing the rates of starvation.
- Harriet Tubman’s answer is legendary. Tubman was an escaped slave who returned to Maryland on numerous perilous journeys to bring other slaves to freedom. She did so over and over again at great risk to her own life and freedom. She also served as a spy to the Union army during the Civil War.
- In the 1960s, James Harrison learned that his blood contained an unusual antibody combination that could be used to prevent a potentially fatal blood condition in babies. So Harrison’s response was to donate blood once a week, every week, until 2018—for a total of 1,173 blood donations. His blood helped create 3 million doses of the Anti-D injection and saved 2.4 million babies.
But tragically, during this pandemic, the answer to, “What are you doing for others?”given by institutional sponsors of covid-19 scientific research—and the lead researcher himself—was: Nothing. They were doing nothing for others. Instead, they knowingly and callously mounted a deadly assault on humanity. And as a result, hundreds of thousands of people are dead—having perished unnecessarily.
Here’s the wretched story.
In late 2020, Dr. Andrew Hill, a researcher at the University of Liverpool, was leading a team of researchers studying the drug ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19. Their work was funded by UNITAID—a global health agency hosted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and supported (in large part) by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Unitaid’s main donors are France, the United Kingdom, Norway, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea, Chile, and Japan.
Dr. Hill and the research team produced their meta-analysis of ivermectin in January, 2021. The paper considered eighteen studies on the thirty-five-year-old drug—which has been safely used since 1987 to eradicate parasitic pandemics in low- and middle-income countries. The study concluded that the use of ivermectin resulted in reduced inflammation and a more rapid elimination of the Sars-Cov-2 virus from the body. Six of the eighteen trials showed that the risk of death from covid-19 was 75 percent lower in patients who had moderate to severe disease.
This was absolutely tremendous news. Hundreds of thousands of lives were about to be saved from the ravages of covid-19. Said Dr. Hill at the time to the Financial Times, “The purpose of this report is to forewarn people that this is coming: get prepared, get supplies, get ready to approve [ivermectin]. We need to be ready.”
When Dr. Hill made that statement—to gear up for the worldwide distribution of ivermectin—nearly 15,000 people were dying across the world every single day. Dr. Hill continued, “Vaccination is central to the response to the epidemic. But [ivermectin] might help reduce infection rates by making people less infectious and it might reduce death rates by treating the viral infection.”
But just one month later, Dr. Hill’s original, positive study conclusions on ivermectin quite literally fell off the rails. And so did the fortunes of the thousands who had no idea then that they were stuck on the tracks with a freight train barreling towards them—unable to get out of harm’s way because help had been hijacked.
Dr. Tess Lawrie, a physician, independent WHO researcher, and Director of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy in Bath, England, had heard that Dr. Hill was about to change his conclusions about ivermectin’s efficacy. So she called him on Zoom to find out why—and recorded the entire conversation.
During that Zoom call, Dr. Hill confessed to Dr. Lawrie that he was changing his study conclusions from positive to negative—because he was under pressure from his funding sponsors to do so.
Wait, what? His sponsors told him to change the study conclusions? NOT the data? What in the hell was going on?
Lawrie was furious.
We know that the studies considered in Hill’s soon-to-be-revised ivermectin paper did not change. But now the paper was going to conclude that because most of those studies in the meta-analysis contained “low-certainty evidence,” the positive results in the first iteration of the paper were now going to be characterized as being of “low certainty.”
But that’s not how it works, folks.
According to Dr. Pierre Kory, President and Chief Medical Officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, “People need to understand that WHO treatment recommendation guidelines routinely include low, moderate, and high bias. They use all data to formulate their recommendations.”
The following excerpts of Andrew Hill’s conversation with Tess Lawrie, recently printed in media stories, are from Robert F. Kennedy’s book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Children’s Health Defense).
......
To be continued...
Phuck Pharma!!
- Joined
- May 10, 2019
- Messages
- 1,832
- Reaction score
- 2,697
- Points
- 113
Want to run in '24?
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
- Reaction score
- 17,060
- Points
- 113
Maybe that's the real reason why Melinda Gates left the geek. These folks sure seem to want to cut the world population....If the virus, a sketchy vaccine, and the lack of treatments won't do it, how about another World War....
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
- Reaction score
- 17,060
- Points
- 113
Fox News Special Report outlines fresh questions on what Fauci, government knew about COVID origin
Fresh questions are being raised about what American scientists and federal health officials knew about the origins of the coronavirus and whether or not conflicting evidence was suppressed and hidden from the public.
Fox News Special Report outlines fresh questions on what Fauci, government knew about COVID origin
Fresh questions are being raised about what American scientists and federal health officials knew about the origins of the coronavirus and whether or not conflicting evidence was suppressed and hidden from the public.www.foxnews.com
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants - Thomas Jefferson
"Fauci organized an all hands on deck conference call with colleagues where he was told that risky experiments with the novel coronavirus may not have gone through proper biosafety review and oversight. "
"Hours later, Fauci hastily organized a call with dozens of worldwide virologists, and notes from the meeting obtained by Special Report reveal that suspicions of the lab leak theory were suppressed over concerns of how the public would react to news of possible Chinese government involvement. "
"It is unclear what new evidence prompted the reversal of opinion, but private communications show that various drafts were sent to Fauci and Collins for approval. "
"Over the next few months, Fauci and Collins worked behind the scenes to squash the lab leak theory and communicated to each other the day after President Trump declined to dismiss the wet market theory, discussing "something NIH can do to help put down this very destructive conspiracy.""
"The email from Collins to Fauci contains a link to a Special Report segment on the issue, and Fauci urged Collins to ignore the story, referring to it as a "shiny object that will go away.""
Similar threads
