15,000+++ Health Professionals On Covid / Covid_19, Covid-19, Cornavirus 19 - Well Researched Posts

How the WEF and the WHO want the PANDEMIC TO CONTINUE IN 2022
Do you see anything interesting about the stats in the image below? BARELY ANY FLU!
Australia also stopped counting flu cases or deaths in exactly the same manner in early 2020. Why? Because the PCR test cannot pick up the difference between COVID, the flu, or the common cold, which are all respiratory illnesses from 'corona' or 'influenza' viruses. (Even the inventor of the PCR test, Dr Kary Mullis, came out and told everyone years ago that his test should not be used to track viral infections & that Dr Fauci was a compulsive, bold faced liar) See Mullis video here http://gab.com/JLF538/posts/106926849321196402
While scientists do have the sequence of COVID-19 isolated, you can't test against it using only the PCR test. You need to test in a lab to reveal anything useful. But now, according to the CDC, there is a new revolutionary test coming onto the market at the end of 2021. We should see the flu miraculously reappear in 2022 while COVID cases will drop rapidly.
In the meantime, they deliberately used this faulty test to inflate the numbers and create a false pandemic, turning the number of "cycles" up so high that the test could even pick up dead mRNA that was not even a living virus. This produced a huge amount of false-positives, fortifying their lie about asymptomatic transmission and the forcing of mask-wearing.
They used this "contrived Plandemic" to push the vaccine along with its passport system. (That's why they are ramming the vaccine down our throats across the media day-in, day-out. They have to get us "signed up" to the program before the end of 2021)
Next they will attempt to produce a hybrid, "all-in-one" COVID and flu vaccine for 2022, forcing people on the vaccine passport to keep taking booster shots forever, thus incorporating the flu into the tyrannical mandates. Don't believe me? Moderna have already started working on this... IF WE DO NOT COMPLY NOW, this agenda will fail.
PS. The "vaccine injuries" from these shots will be called the Marburg virus which leads to the most deadly of all vaccines called RICIN.
http://gab.com/JLF538/posts/107027144902262868 (video about Marburg and RICIN)
http://www.deseret.com/coronavirus/2021/9/12/22666571/moderna-single-shot-flu-covid-19-vaccine (3 links to Moderna combined vax)
http://www.news10.com/news/science/moderna-working-on-hybrid-covid-flu-vaccine/
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...making-all-encompassing-booster-what-to-know/
http://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-alberta-case-idUSL1N2PE0EX (article: has COVID-19 been isolated?)

 

1989 ???
it is a cold

 

Fauci Was Duplicitous on the AIDS Epidemic Too
https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-was-duplicitous-on-the-aids-epidemic-too/

Fauci Was Duplicitous on the AIDS Epidemic Too
Phillip W. Magness
– February 23, 2021


In May 1983, amid the rapidly escalating AIDS crisis,
a doctor at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
promoted a stunning theory about the newly encountered disease
in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Noting that the same issue of the journal contained an article
documenting one of the first cases of the immunodeficiency
disease’s appearance in an infant, the author sounded an alarm
about “the possibility that routine close contact,
as within a family household, can spread the disease.”

The article took an increasingly speculative turn
in promoting this new theory.

“If indeed the latter is true, then AIDS takes on an entirely new dimension,”
it continued. “If we add to this possibility that nonsexual,
non-blood-borne transmission is possible, the scope of the syndrome
may be enormous.”

Although the article reiterated the need to “be cautious”
in accepting these findings as they awaited more evidence,
the discovery “should at least alert us to the possibility
that we are truly dealing with AIDS in children,”
as transmitted through routine interaction.

The author of the article has since attained widespread familiarity.

It was Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, a rising star within the NIH bureaucracy.

Press accounts, noticing Fauci’s article, immediately sounded the alarm.

“Household contacts can transmit AIDS,” read one nationally syndicated report
on the UPI wire dated May 5, 1983.

The Associated Press queried the next day
“Does AIDS spread by Routine Contact?”
and quoted Fauci as their lead authority.

The New York Times raised the specter of household transmission between family members, invoking Fauci’s commentary as its main authority.

We now know of course that Fauci’s theory was wrong. HIV, the virus that was later discovered to cause AIDS, only transmits by exposure to infected bodily fluids such as blood, or by sexual contact.

The infant infection discussed in the same JAMA issue involved vertical transmission from the mother to child during pregnancy.


The damage was already done though, as the media went to work stoking alarm about AIDS transmission through simple routine contacts.

Hundreds of newspapers disseminated the distressing theory from Fauci’s article.

Writing a few weeks later, conservative columnist Pat Buchanan enlisted
Fauci as the centerpiece of a rebuttal against Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler, who told him “there is no evidence…
that the general population is threatened by [AIDS].”

On July 14, both Buchanan’s column and its excerpt of Fauci’s article
were entered into the congressional record along with moralizing commentary
that assigned blame for the disease to homosexual establishments and gatherings.

Unfounded fears of transmission risk through simple contact, and accompanying social ostracization of the disease’s victims, became one of the most notorious
and harmful missteps of the entire AIDS crisis.

It might be tempting to chalk Fauci’s error up to the scientific uncertainties
of a novel disease. Medicine advances by investigating all plausible theories, subjecting them to testing, and ruling out those that lack evidence.

In this case however, the more likely candidate was scientific negligence and unwarranted alarmist speculation.

Journalist Randy Shilts documented the incident in his classic early history of the AIDS crisis, And the Band Played On.

Immunologist Arye Rubinstein had already offered a more plausible explanation
for the infant case, which even cursory examination would verify:
the disease transmitted from the mother to the baby during pregnancy.

As Shilts explains, “Upon investigation, Rubinstein learned that Anthony Fauci
had not bothered to read his paper.” The NIH scientist instead relied
on second-hand information from another researcher to indulge in open-ended speculation (for a longer excerpt of Shilts, see David Henderson’s post
on Fauci’s early career).

Although his speculative commentary had triggered a national media frenzy
over unfounded fears of AIDS transmission through routine contact,
Fauci himself emerged relatively unscathed from the episode.
He did so by deploying an all-too-familiar tactic
from his Covid-19 commentary: the political pivot,
executed in front of a fawning news media.

On June 26, less than two months after his JAMA article appeared,
Fauci publicly contradicted its most irresponsible claim
– albeit without ever acknowledging his own central role in promoting
that claim to begin with. As he told the Baltimore Sun,
“It is absolutely preposterous to suggest that AIDS
can be contracted through normal social contact like being
in the same room with someone or sitting on a bus with them.

The poor gays have received a very raw deal on this.”

In short, Fauci flip-flopped with the political winds and the press
barely even noticed.

It’s a familiar pattern to anyone who has closely followed
the infectious disease bureaucrat’s public commentary
since Covid-19 burst into the national news cycle last January.

It usually starts with Anthony Fauci fielding a question about a disease
from the press, at which point he offers up a highly speculative answer
that nonetheless appears to carry the gravity of his own authority.

Fauci usually caveats his remarks with a stream
of noncommittal auxiliary verbs – the disease “could,” “might,”
or “may” behave as his latest prognostication asserts.

But the press runs with a bold headline anyway,
declaring that Fauci has spoken and his word is final…
at least until it is not.

That’s when Fauci modifies his prior position without even the slightest
scrutiny from an adoring press corps, and proceeds as if his
newer pronouncement has been his position all along.

The flip-flop is then complete and broadcast by the same press
as the new gospel, even if it directly contradicts the fair doctor’s
own advice given only weeks or days prior.

Consider one of the first examples of Fauci’s commentary on Covid-19,
given to CNN on January 24, 2020
– the day after the Wuhan region of China
went into draconian lockdown.

Asked about the Chinese government’s decision, Fauci declared

“That’s something that I don’t think we could possibly do in the United States,
I can’t imagine shutting down New York or Los Angeles.”

This assessment was no casual political preference,
but rather reflected Fauci’s own judgment from past pandemics.

He continued: “[h]istorically when you shut things down
it doesn’t have a major effect.”

Indeed, this was Fauci’s own position during the 2014 Ebola outbreak.

A recently resurfaced interview on NBC shows Fauci warning
against “draconian” quarantine measures for Ebola,
and chastising several state governors for enacting hasty emergency restrictions
to contain an outbreak in the United States without considering
the unintended consequences.

By mid-March 2020, less than two months after he disavowed
the use of lockdowns in major US cities such as New York and Los Angeles,
Fauci executed a flip-flop and repositioned himself as the U.S. government’s
primary architect of our historically unprecedented lockdown response.

“If you look at the curves of outbreaks, they go big peaks, and then come down.

What we need to do is flatten that down,” he told the press on March 11.

On March 16, Fauci, along with the rest of the Trump administration’s coronavirus task force, threw their weight behind the now-discredited Imperial College Model
of Neil Ferguson, igniting a wave of draconian shelter-in-place ordinances
in not only New York and Los Angeles but ultimately 43 of 50 states.

“But the evidence on lockdowns changed!” comes the predictable cry of those who instinctively defend Fauci through every twist and turn in his messaging.

Except it didn’t. Prior to March 2020,
a substantial body of epidemiological literature strongly condemned lockdowns

– both for their ineffectiveness and their extremely high social and economic costs.

The only change that happened between January and March was political;
namely that technocratic modelers such as Ferguson realized that fear
and alarm over the coronavirus could be used to brush aside civil liberties
and democratic norms in favor of a society-wide quarantine modeled
on the Chinese response in Wuhan.

Neil Ferguson openly boasted as much in a December 2020 interview,
recalling the political sea change of those confused and panicked days
from the previous March.

Among those who embraced this rapid political shift toward lockdowns
was none other than Fauci. Indeed on February 17, 2020 the infectious disease administrator told USA Today that the risk from the coronavirus
in the United States was “just minuscule.”

Barely three weeks later Fauci would call for a nationwide lockdown,
albeit for only two weeks.

For Fauci, that quickly became a month.

Then two months.

Then denunciations of states that reopened “too early.”

Then testimony praising New York for remaining closed and providing a “model” Covid response despite boasting one of the highest per-capita death rates in the entire world.

Then a push to reimpose stricter lockdowns in the fall.

Per his latest prognostication, offered almost exactly 1 year
to the day after he dismissed Covid-19 as a “minuscule” threat
to the United States, we may return to normal by early 2022.

And just like that, “two weeks to flatten the curve” became two years.

In recounting this history, it is important to be mindful
that high-uncertainty events such as a novel virus and pandemic
are unavoidably difficult to predict.

But that acknowledged challenge is no excuse for figures like Fauci,
who not only offer their prognostications on the whim of the moment
but often do so on an entirely speculative basis, fully knowing that it will see credulous repetition in the press as an authoritative pronouncement.

Fauci’s greater fault is not that he errs, although he does err frequently,
but rather the hubris of the moment through which he speaks
even as he curiously shelters his pronouncements in caveats
intended to permit a future pivot.

Yet when that pivot occurs and Fauci adopts a completely different
or even contradictory position in light of new political circumstances,
he advances it with further hubristic pretensions
before an obsequious gaggle of journalists,
as if the new stance had always been his position.

We’ve now seen such pivots on countless occasions, including some
that entailed willful duplicity.

Consider Fauci’s pronouncements against mask wearing in
March 2020 on 60 Minutes.

By July, Fauci had not only reversed to the opposite position
– he essentially conceded that he deceived the public back in March
in order to allegedly prevent a run on masks that might cause
a hospital shortage.

In effect, Fauci told what he considered to be a “noble lie” in the name
of coaxing the public into a position he desired them to follow,
rather than serving as a reliable source of scientific information.

It’s a pattern he has repeated many times, most recently
when he moved the target vaccination rate goalposts from 70% to 90%
in a self-admitted deception intended to “nudge” the public
toward his new position.

That duplicity earned him praise though when he excused it
as an effort to counter vaccine misinformation.

Even beyond these intentional manipulations though,
Fauci’s commentary displays a stunning level
of inconsistency and contradiction.

Long after masking supplanted his initial advice against masking,
Fauci shifted yet again to double-masking, then backtracked
on this advice a few days later, then re-embraced the practice
a few days after that in conjunction with a new CDC recommendation.

More recently, he’s taken to contradicting himself on whether to expect
the sharp peaks and declines in case numbers we’ve recently seen
in the US and around the world.

Yet throughout, Fauci’s reputation as a steady and measured source
of sage wisdom and medical authority remains largely intact
before the public’s eye.

Why? I’ll posit that it’s the product of a skilled political operative
with four decades of honing his abilities to execute politically
motivated pivots amid disease uncertainty.

Note the recurring characteristics of his public communications
that have become hallmarks of Fauci’s style.

Whether it’s the coronavirus of 2020-21 or the AIDS crisis of 1983,
he routinely stakes out public positions that rely upon unwarranted
speculation about scientific matters in the absence of evidence.

His scientific statements carry an air of authority,
and are certainly repeated as such by an adoring press

– including in ways that mislead the public and even cause harm
to our ability to address and combat an emerging disease.

Yet if one reads his statements carefully, they also contain
enough weasel words – “might,” “may,” “could” – to facilitate
a convenient political pivot at a later date, shirking all responsibility
for the harm caused in the process.

And in the instances where a complete contradiction occurs,
he takes refuge in duplicity for a “noble” purpose,
which the press is all too happy to excuse away.

But missteps by powerful and trusted public health officials often lead
to genuine harms.

Indeed, it’s no small irony that Fauci’s initial response to AIDS triggered
a wave of panicked fear that quickly morphed into the social ostracization
of the disease’s victims.

It’s not difficult to see similar patterns at play in the rise of a moralizing coronajustice ideology that treats all of society as a potential disease vector,
and even valorizes social derision of those who contract Covid-19.

While Fauci is not the only factor in the politicization of either disease,
his vacillating commentary has often served to inflame these
and other social ills, and usually with few
or no professional repercussions to himself.

Quite the opposite – the more he’s been wrong,
the higher his stature has grown.

The more he’s played politics in the name of doing science,
the higher levels of political power he has attained.

If you want to see an end to the lockdown madness,
the ongoing destruction of human lives and livelihoods,
and the unprecedented government failures
that have come to characterize our daily routines for the last year,
the lessons of this administrator’s performance should be obvious.

It’s time to stop listening to Fauci, and time to stop treating
his wildly inconsistent political posturing as if it carries
any scientific authority.

Phillip W. Magness


Phillip W. Magness is Senior Research Faculty and Interim Research
and Education Director at the American Institute for Economic Research.

He holds a PhD and MPP from George Mason University’s School
of Public Policy, and a BA from the University of St. Thomas (Houston).

Prior to joining AIER, Dr. Magness spent over a decade teaching public policy, economics, and international trade at institutions
including American University, George Mason University, and Berry College.

Magness’s work encompasses the economic history of the United States
and Atlantic world, with specializations in the economic dimensions
of slavery and racial discrimination, the history of taxation,
and measurements of economic inequality over time.

He also maintains active research interest in higher education policy
and the history of economic thought

. In addition to his scholarship, Magness’s popular writings
have appeared in numerous venues including the Wall Street Journal,
the New York Times, Newsweek, Politico, Reason, National Review,
and the Chronicle of Higher Education.


Books by Phillip W. Magness




Fauci Was Duplicitous on the AIDS Epidemic Too
https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-was-duplicitous-on-the-aids-epidemic-too/

 

Fauci’s Fake News: In 1983 Accuses Children of Spreading AIDS - The True Defender !
https://thetruedefender.com/faucis-fake-news-in-1983-accuses-children-of-spreading-aids/
Fauci’s Fake News:

In 1983 Accuses Children of Spreading AIDS


Margaret Taylor
May 20, 2021



Ads by optAd360
During the 1980s AIDS crisis, Anthony Fauci, a rising star in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) bureaucracy, promoted a false and unscientific hypothesis that children could spread the disease within their families through close contact. According to Great Game India, the media rapidly spread this disinformation, causing a national media frenzy and public hysteria.
On May 6, 1983, Fauci published an article in JAMA Network, the American Medical Association’s monthly open-access medical journal, in which he promulgated this false theory about a newly discovered little-known syndrome.
Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender

He also mentioned in that article that the journal had published a study documenting one of the first cases of immunodeficiency disease in an infant in the same issue, increasing “the possibility that routine close contact, such as within a family home, may spread the disease.”

---

“Researchers conclude the disease can be transmitted by sexual contact and blood transfusions.
However, “if non-sexual, non-blood transmission is plausible, the magnitude of the syndrome may be enormous,”
Fauci continued, “AIDS takes on a whole new dimension,” fueling confusion and alarm
by placing a more theoretical spin on his hypothesis.

The media jumped on Fauci’s claims and took action almost immediately.

Fauci’s hypothesis was deceptive, unsupported, and quickly debunked. It was discovered that the infant infection described in JAMA,
on which he based his theory, involved vertical transmission from mother to child during pregnancy.

Furthermore, HIV, the virus later connected to the cause of AIDS, is only transmitted through contact with contaminated bodily fluids,
such as blood, or through sexual contact, according to medical and scientific consensus.

However, the damage had already been done. Hundreds of newspapers published Fauci’s deceptive hypothesis,
and the media vigorously worked to raise awareness about the spread of AIDS through everyday communication.

Fears of transmission by simple touch, which were unfounded, became one of the most damaging blunders of the entire AIDS crisis.
Making a comparison to the COVID-19 crisis, also known as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP Virus).

Several details indicate that Fauci is a manipulation strategist who uses deception to achieve goals related to his financial interests.

TheBL commented on one of these related facts in an article revealing how Fauci admittedly tricked Americans
into having vaccines without providing supporting scientific evidence or prior correctly validated studies.

He is said to be paid a large fee on vaccine sales.

Fauci’s Fake News: In 1983 Accuses Children of Spreading AIDS - The True Defender !
https://thetruedefender.com/faucis-fake-news-in-1983-accuses-children-of-spreading-aids/

 

#WiSEWORDs
#remember
"#iTiSTime to speak your piece
~be a piece of peace"
~susan lynne schwenger
@13linesofspirit

 

Wait until everyone finds out that Fauci
killed 100's of thousands of AIDS patients with AZT.

It was all about the money for AZT just like now.

 

1. Fauci’s Fake News:
   
   In 1983 Accuses Children of Spreading AIDS
   
   https://thetruedefender.com/faucis-fake-news-in-1983-accuses-children-of-spreading-aids/
   
   
   2021-05-20 · During the 1980s AIDS crisis, Anthony Fauci,
   a rising star in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) bureaucracy,
   promoted a false and unscientific hypothesis that children
   could spread the disease within their families through close contact.