Connect with us

Government

Fauci Warned About Coronaviruses In 2003 – But Didn’t Act On It

Fauci Warned About Coronaviruses In 2003 – But Didn’t Act On It

By Kirk Allen and John Kraft of RealClearPolicy,

Few would argue the United States, or any country for that matter, was prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic, even though, starting

Published

2 years ago

on

Fauci Warned About Coronaviruses In 2003 – But Didn't Act On It

By Kirk Allen and John Kraft of RealClearPolicy,

Few would argue the United States, or any country for that matter, was prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic, even though, starting in 2003, the U.S. devoted $5.6 billion to fund Project Bioshield, running through 2013, and another $2.8 billion of funding through 2018. Project Bioshield was designed to prepare the United States against a bio attack, including provisions for the stockpiling and distribution of vaccines.

Though Covid-19 was a new virus, congressional testimony from 2003 paints a concerning picture about what we knew – and when – about the family of viruses from which it originated.

“I am particularly interested in learning how Project BioShield would assist in addressing the current public health emergency created by the epidemic known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome [SARS],” said Tom Davis, chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. “More than 2,000 suspected cases of this mysterious disease have been reported in 17 nations, including the United States, with 78 fatalities. So far, there is no effective treatment or vaccine to combat this deadly syndrome.”

Among those testifying to the committee in 2003 was Dr. Anthony Fauci, then and now the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci told the committee:

SARS, standing for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, has now spread through several countries, at least 17 countries. There are over 2,200 cases, and about 80 deaths. There have now been 100 cases in the United States in 27 states. This is a new disease. It is what we refer to as an emerging microbe, an emerging infectious disease. The data from the CDC and from other laboratories indicate that the corona virus, which is an interesting group – it is a very common virus. It is what causes about 10 to 20 percent of the common colds. There are two groups of corona viruses. This is likely a member of a new third group. It has not been definitively demonstrated that this is the, or the only, cause of SARS, but the evidence is mounting every day from a variety of approaches that we are taking.

According to testimony in 2003, Fauci confirmed SARS was an emerging infectious disease of which data indicated it was tied to the coronavirus, the cause of 10-20 percent of common colds.

“It has the capability of being a very severe syndrome,” Fauci continues. “The death rate in this is 3.5 percent, which may sound small, but when you think about the possibility of infecting hundreds of millions of people, this can turn out to be a major public health threat. In fact, in parts of the world it already is leading to such draconian measures as quarantines and isolation in several countries.”

Fauci continues: “The CDC has done a magnificent job thus far,” Fauci said in 2003, “and we know that they will continue to, in not only identifying and tracking but essentially now moving ahead in collaboration with the NIH and a variety of other agencies, the FDA, in developing diagnostic therapeutics and on our way to a vaccine.”

How is it that in 2003, Fauci claimed the CDC, in collaboration with the NIH, was doing a magnificent job and would work toward therapeutics and an eventual vaccine – and yet this country was basically blindsided, with few known therapeutics and no vaccine, 17 years later? The medical advice that became the norm and remains the norm in many parts of the United States is, if you become infected with COVID-19, stay home, and wait to see if you get sicker. Looking back on Fauci’s words, it appears our health officials missed the mark on a grand scale.

Even more concerning: in 2003, it was disclosed that monoclonal antibodies have changed the way we treat everything from heart disease to cancer – yet such treatments were not being pushed like they are now.

Fauci’s words throughout the 2003 hearing are troubling in light of where we are today with COVID-19.

“So, in summary, Mr. Chairman, it is a serious threat,” Fauci said then of SARS. “We must take it very seriously. We don’t feel there is a need to panic at this point, but we must continue to do the very stringent public health measures that we are approaching, as well as the research that is going into it.”

Congressman Henry Waxman asks Fauci: “Is there a potential for dual-use where the research of biodefense may well lead us to research breakthroughs for other diseases?”

“I think it is not only a potential, Mr. Waxman, I think it is inevitable that there will be an important contribution to the research that we put into emerging and reemerging diseases to inform us about biodefense research, and it is without a doubt that the research that goes into biodefense will help us with naturally occurring,” Fauci responds. “Because as a matter of fact, as we have discussed before, as you know we feel that deliberately released microbes is just another form of emerging and reemerging disease. Instead of occurring naturally, it is done with malice and deliberately, but the end result can be the same.”

While Fauci has been extremely reluctant to admit that gain-of-function research was taking place with American tax dollars and that China was responsible for the release of the COVID-19 virus, his 2003 testimony makes clear that he felt deliberately released microbes were just another form of emerging and reemerging disease.

The bottom line: the United States was not prepared for COVID-19, and the draconian measures to handle it that have been pushed by Fauci from March 2020 on have not resulted in declining mortality numbers – in fact, the trend we are seeing is more deaths in the last 10 months than in all of 2020.

As it is clear that he has known for years the serious threat the United States and the world faced from coronaviruses, and it appears he did very little in the last 17 years to address the very concerns he raised about them in his testimony in 2003, Dr. Fauci should resign – in disgrace.

Tyler Durden Fri, 11/12/2021 - 22:20

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

International

Angry Shouting Aside, Here’s What Biden Is Running On

Angry Shouting Aside, Here’s What Biden Is Running On

Last night, Joe Biden gave an extremely dark, threatening, angry State of the Union…

Published

2 hours ago

on

March 8, 2024

By

Angry Shouting Aside, Here's What Biden Is Running On

Last night, Joe Biden gave an extremely dark, threatening, angry State of the Union address - in which he insisted that the American economy is doing better than ever, blamed inflation on 'corporate greed,' and warned that Donald Trump poses an existential threat to the republic.

But in between the angry rhetoric, he also laid out his 2024 election platform - for which additional details will be released on March 11, when the White House sends its proposed budget to Congress.

To that end, Goldman Sachs' Alec Phillips and Tim Krupa have summarized the key points:

Taxes

While railing against billionaires (nothing new there), Biden repeated the claim that anyone making under $400,000 per year won't see an increase in their taxes.  He also proposed a 21% corporate minimum tax, up from 15% on book income outlined in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), as well as raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% (which would promptly be passed along to consumers in the form of more inflation). Goldman notes that "Congress is unlikely to consider any of these proposals this year, they would only come into play in a second Biden term, if Democrats also won House and Senate majorities."

Biden also called on Congress to restore the pandemic-era child tax credit.

Immigration

Instead of simply passing a slew of border security Executive Orders like the Trump ones he shredded on day one, Biden repeated the lie that Congress 'needs to act' before he can (translation: send money to Ukraine or the US border will continue to be a sieve).

As immigration comes into even greater focus heading into the election, we continue to expect the Administration to tighten policy (e.g., immigration has surged 20pp the last 7 months to first place with 28% in Gallup’s “most important problem” survey). As such, we estimate the foreign-born contribution to monthly labor force growth will moderate from 110k/month in 2023 to around 70-90k/month in 2024. -GS

Ukraine

Biden, with House Speaker Mike Johnson doing his best impression of a bobble-head, urged Congress to pass additional assistance for Ukraine based entirely on the premise that Russia 'won't stop' there (and would what, trigger article 5 and WW3 no matter what?), despite the fact that Putin explicitly told Tucker Carlson he has no further ambitions, and in fact seeks a settlement.

As Goldman estimates, "While there is still a clear chance that such a deal could come together, for now there is no clear path forward for Ukraine aid in Congress."

China

Biden, forgetting about all the aggressive tariffs, suggested that Trump had been soft on China, and that he will stand up "against China's unfair economic practices" and "for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait."

Healthcare

Lastly, Biden proposed to expand drug price negotiations to 50 additional drugs each year (an increase from 20 outlined in the IRA), which Goldman said would likely require bipartisan support "even if Democrats controlled Congress and the White House," as such policies would likely be ineligible for the budget "reconciliation" process which has been used in previous years to pass the IRA and other major fiscal party when Congressional margins are just too thin.

So there you have it. With no actual accomplishments to speak of, Biden can only attack Trump, lie, and make empty promises.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 18:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Jack Smith Says Trump Retention Of Documents “Starkly Different” From Biden

Jack Smith Says Trump Retention Of Documents "Starkly Different" From Biden

Authored by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Special…

Published

2 hours ago

on

March 8, 2024

By

Jack Smith Says Trump Retention Of Documents "Starkly Different" From Biden

Authored by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Special counsel Jack Smith has argued the case he is prosecuting against former President Donald Trump for allegedly mishandling classified information is “starkly different” from the case the Department of Justice declined to bring against President Joe Biden over retention of classified documents.

(Left) Special counsel Jack Smith in Washington on Aug. 1, 2023. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images); (Right) Former President Donald Trump. (David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

Prosecutors, in responding to a motion President Trump filed to dismiss the case based on selective and vindictive prosecution, said on Thursday this is not the case of “two men ‘commit[ting] the same basic crime in substantially the same manner.”

They argue the similarities are only “superficial,” and that there are two main differences: that President Trump allegedly “engaged in extensive and repeated efforts to obstruct justice and thwart the return of documents” and the “evidence concerning the two men’s intent.”

Special counsel Robert Hur’s report found that there was evidence that President Biden “willfully” retained classified Afghanistan documents, but that evidence “fell short” of concluding guilt of willful retention beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors argue the “strength of the evidence” is a crucial element showing these cases are not “similarly situated.”

“Trump may dispute the Hur Report’s conclusions but he should not be allowed to misrepresent them,” prosecutors wrote, arguing that the defense’s argument to dismiss the case fell short of legal standards.

They point to volume as another distinction: President Biden had 88 classified documents and President Trump had 337. Prosecutors also argued that while President Biden’s Delaware garage “was plainly an unsecured location ... whatever risks are posed by storing documents in a private garage” were “dwarfed” by President Trump storing documents at an “active social club” with 150 staff members and hundreds of visitors.

Defense attorneys had also cited a New York Times report where President Biden was reported to have held the view that President Trump should be prosecuted, expressing concern about his retention of documents at Mar-a-lago.

Prosecutors argued that this case was not “foisted” upon the special counsel, who had not been appointed at the time of these comments.

“Trump appears to contend that it was President Biden who actually made the decision to seek the charges in this case; that Biden did so solely for unconstitutional reasons,” the filing reads. “He presents no evidence whatsoever to show that Biden’s comments about him had any bearing on the Special Counsel’s decision to seek charges, much less that the Special Counsel is a ’stalking horse.'”

8 Other Cases

President Trump has argued he is being subjected to selective and vindictive prosecution, warranting dismissal of the case, but prosecutors argue that the defense has not “identified anyone who has engaged in a remotely similar battery of criminal conduct and not been prosecuted as a result.”

In addition to President Biden, defense attorneys offered eight other examples.

Former Vice President Mike Pence had, after 2023 reports about President Biden retaining classified documents surfaced, retained legal counsel to search his home for classified documents. Some documents were found, and he sent them to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Prosecutors say this was different from President Trump’s situation, as Vice President Pence returned the documents out of his own initiative and had fewer than 15 classified documents.

Former President Bill Clinton had retained a historian to put together “The Clinton Tapes” project, and it was later reported that NARA did not have those tapes years after his presidency. A court had ruled it could not compel NARA to try to recover the records, and NARA had defined the tapes as personal records.

Prosecutors argue those were tape diaries and the situation was “far different” from President Trump’s.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had “used private email servers ... to conduct official State Department business,” the DOJ found, and the FBI opened a criminal investigation.

Prosecutors argued this was a different situation where the secretary’s emails showed no “classified” markings and the deletion of more than 31,000 emails was done by an employee and not the secretary.

Former FBI Director James Comey had retained four memos “believing that they contained no classified information.” These memos were part of seven he authored addressing interactions he had with President Trump.

Prosecutors argued there was no obstructive behavior here.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus kept bound notebooks that contained classified and unclassified notes, which he allowed a biographer to review. The FBI later seized the notebooks and Mr. Petraeus took a guilty plea.

Prosecutors argued there was prosecution in Mr. Petraeus’s case, and so President Trump’s case is not selective.

Former national security adviser Sandy Berger removed five copies of a classified document and kept them at his personal office, later shredding three of the copies. When confronted by NARA, he returned the remaining two copies and took a guilty plea.

Former CIA director John Deutch kept a journal with classified information on an unclassified computer, and also took a guilty plea.

Prosecutors argued both Mr. Berger and Mr. Deutch’s behavior was “vastly less egregious than Trump’s” and they had been prosecuted.

Former White House coronavirus response coordinator Deborah Birx had possession of classified materials according to documents retrieved by NARA.

Prosecutors argued that there was no indication she knew she had classified information or “attempted to obstruct justice.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 17:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

United Airlines adds new flights to faraway destinations

The airline said that it has been working hard to "find hidden gem destinations."

Published

9 hours ago

on

March 8, 2024

By

Since countries started opening up after the pandemic in 2021 and 2022, airlines have been seeing demand soar not just for major global cities and popular routes but also for farther-away destinations.

Numerous reports, including a recent TripAdvisor survey of trending destinations, showed that there has been a rise in U.S. traveler interest in Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea and Vietnam as well as growing tourism traction in off-the-beaten-path European countries such as Slovenia, Estonia and Montenegro.

Related: 'No more flying for you': Travel agency sounds alarm over risk of 'carbon passports'

As a result, airlines have been looking at their networks to include more faraway destinations as well as smaller cities that are growing increasingly popular with tourists and may not be served by their competitors.

The Philippines has been popular among tourists in recent years.

Shutterstock

United brings back more routes, says it is committed to 'finding hidden gems'

This week, United Airlines  (UAL)  announced that it will be launching a new route from Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) to Morocco's Marrakesh. While it is only the country's fourth-largest city, Marrakesh is a particularly popular place for tourists to seek out the sights and experiences that many associate with the country — colorful souks, gardens with ornate architecture and mosques from the Moorish period.

More Travel:

"We have consistently been ahead of the curve in finding hidden gem destinations for our customers to explore and remain committed to providing the most unique slate of travel options for their adventures abroad," United's SVP of Global Network Planning Patrick Quayle, said in a press statement.

The new route will launch on Oct. 24 and take place three times a week on a Boeing 767-300ER  (BA)  plane that is equipped with 46 Polaris business class and 22 Premium Plus seats. The plane choice was a way to reach a luxury customer customer looking to start their holiday in Marrakesh in the plane.

Along with the new Morocco route, United is also launching a flight between Houston (IAH) and Colombia's Medellín on Oct. 27 as well as a route between Tokyo and Cebu in the Philippines on July 31 — the latter is known as a "fifth freedom" flight in which the airline flies to the larger hub from the mainland U.S. and then goes on to smaller Asian city popular with tourists after some travelers get off (and others get on) in Tokyo.

United's network expansion includes new 'fifth freedom' flight

In the fall of 2023, United became the first U.S. airline to fly to the Philippines with a new Manila-San Francisco flight. It has expanded its service to Asia from different U.S. cities earlier last year. Cebu has been on its radar amid growing tourist interest in the region known for marine parks, rainforests and Spanish-style architecture.

With the summer coming up, United also announced that it plans to run its current flights to Hong Kong, Seoul, and Portugal's Porto more frequently at different points of the week and reach four weekly flights between Los Angeles and Shanghai by August 29.

"This is your normal, exciting network planning team back in action," Quayle told travel website The Points Guy of the airline's plans for the new routes.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending