Dr Fauci and covid 19



‘I Don’t Recall’: Fauci Unable to Answer Key Questions in Pandemic Probe

Dr. Anthony Fauci claimed more than 100 times that he did not remember details about the pandemic response and origins during a House interview Monday regarding COVID-19 policies and funding decisions.

By  Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.


Link copied

anthony fauci pandemic house interview feature

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the DayIt’s free.

On the first day of a two-day closed-door interview before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Monday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), frequently evaded questions about gain-of-function research and the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), in a statement following Monday’s interview, said, “Dr. Fauci’s testimony today uncovered drastic and systemic failures in America’s public health systems” and that Fauci “had no idea what was happening under his own jurisdiction at NIAID.”

According to The Hill, Fauci offered “his expertise on preparing for potential outbreaks in the future.” But according to The Washington Times, he “couldn’t remember many details about his advocacy of lockdowns, his flip-flopping on mask mandates and his decision to allow government funding of gain-of-function research in China that might have led to the pandemic.”

Fauci “claimed he ‘did not recall’ pertinent COVID-19 information or conversations more than 100 times,” and “profusely defended his previous congressional testimony where he stated the National Institutes of Health (NIH) did not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan,” according to the subcommittee statement.

Fauci also “repeatedly played semantics with the definition of gain-of-function in an attempt to avoid conceding that NIH funded potentially dangerous research in China,” the subcommittee stated.

Responding to Monday’s testimony, Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., a frequent critic of gain-of-function research, told The Defender:

“Fauci repeatedly and flagrantly violated U.S. government policies implemented to protect the public from lab-generated pandemics. He lied — brazenly — to Congress about his policy violations in three Senate hearings in 2021-2022. He lied — brazenly — to Congress about his policy violations again yesterday.”

Investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker, who has documented attempts by Fauci and other government officials, federal agencies and leading scientists to cover up the U.S. government’s role in funding gain-of-function research in China, told The Defender he was not surprised by Fauci’s stance.

“As I documented over two years ago, Anthony Fauci has lied about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan. That’s fine. People in Washington lie all the time,” Thacker said.

“But when he lied during a congressional hearing, wagging his finger at Senator [Rand] Paul … I knew immediately he had broken the law. His lies about this pandemic have been documented in multiple media outlets and I hope he is eventually prosecuted,” he added.

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., professor of international law at the University of Illinois and a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, told The Defender Fauci should be prosecuted.

“Fauci knew exactly what was going on at the Wuhan BSL4 [biosafety level 4] and the University of North Carolina BSL3 — he was paying for it,” Boyle said. “He has repeatedly perjured himself in testimony before Congress. This is just more of the same.”

Boyle said Wenstrup should follow Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) example and refer Fauci to the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution for perjury. “Maybe we will get some action there now that the Wuhan cover-up is unfolding, as detailed in Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book, ‘The Wuhan Cover-Up,’” he added.

The seven-hour meeting was Fauci’s first appearance in the House since retiring from public office in December 2022. He was accompanied by two of his attorneys and two government attorneys, according to The Hill.

The closed-door testimony was first announced by Wenstrup on Nov. 30, 2023. In the same announcement, Wenstrup revealed that Fauci will sit before the subcommittee as part of a public hearing later in 2024. That meeting has not yet been scheduled.

In his statement about Moday’s interview, Wenstrup said it was “concerning that the face of our nation’s response to the world’s worst public health crisis ‘does not recall’ key details about COVID-19 origins and pandemic-era policies. Nearly 1.2 million Americans lost their lives to a potentially preventable pandemic,” he added.

“The Wuhan Cover-Up” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.


Fauci ‘repeatedly and fragrantly violated’ gain-of-function research definitions

According to The Washington Times, lawmakers prepared 200 pages of questions for Fauci. In remarks quoted by The New York Post, Wenstrup said Fauci’s testimony “will shed light on topics that no Committee member, nor news outlet has ever inquired about before.”

Fauci took several breaks during the interview, but the meeting had a “respectful” and “cooperative” tone. Fauci did not take questions from reporters.

Yet, despite the reported tone, Fauci was evasive on key issues, such as gain-of-function research.

Regarding Fauci’s apparently poor recall, Wenstrup said, “That just means that maybe we have to find the people that do recall.”

In a Jan. 4 op-ed published in The New York Post, James Bovard, author of “Last Rights: The Death of American Liberty,” wrote that “The subcommittee announced Fauci’s ‘honesty is non-negotiable.’”

“But will his memory stage another boycott?” Bovard asked, noting that when Fauci was deposed in 2022 for the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit on government censorship of COVID-19 counternarratives, he answered “I don’t recall” 174 times, “including about damning and quite memorable emails he sent.”

Much of this evasiveness appears to have come in response to questions about gain-of-function research.

Wenstrup remarked on Fauci’s “new … operational definition” of gain-of-function. “I don’t know that every scientist that deals with this type of viral research understands his definition.”

According to Ebright:

“Fauci’s attempt to deny he violated U.S. government policies by claiming he uses different definitions of ‘gain-of-function research’ and enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research is equivalent — exactly equivalent — to a terrorist attempting to deny he violated federal laws by claiming he uses different definitions of ‘terrorism.’

“Fauci was not empowered to replace definitions in U.S. government policies with his own personal definitions.”

Ebright told The Defender the only definitions of “gain-of-function research” and “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen research” that matter are the definitions in the U.S. government policies in effect in 2014-2017 and from 2018 to the present.

Based on those definitions, Ebright said Fauci “repeatedly and fragrantly violated” the guidelines for both types of research.

According to Newsweek, “Fauci has previously denied in testimony to Congress that the National Institutes of Health, of which he was a member between 1984 and 2022, had funded risky ‘gain-of-function’ research.”

A Jan. 6 report by U.S. Right to Know said that “scientists at the center of the ‘lab leak’ controversy” visited Fauci’s NIAID in 2017 to discuss their research — “just months before NIH lifted a pause on high-risk virology, and two years before a novel coronavirus emerged near their lab in Wuhan.”

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) defended Fauci after Monday’s interview:

“A lot of our GOP colleagues have failed to recognize the operative, regulatory definition [of] gain-of-function that was instituted in 2017 was operative at the time the COVID pandemic came along. And the concern over EcoHealth Alliance … Dr. Fauci was able to clarify that today.”

Wenstrup said the subcommittee planned to question Fauci further regarding gain-of-function research today.

RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”


Fauci unable to confirm NIAID had any oversight of U.S.-funded foreign labs

Monday’s interview also addressed government grants for gain-of-function research and foreign laboratories, such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China.

According to the subcommittee, Fauci “testified that he signed off on every foreign and domestic NIAID grant without reviewing the proposals” but “was unable to confirm if NIAID has ANY mechanisms to conduct oversight of the foreign laboratories they fund.”

“A 2020 email, previously released by the Select Subcommittee, proved Dr. Fauci was aware of dangerous gain-of-function research occurring in Wuhan, China. Today, he backtracked by arguing he should not have stated that as ‘fact,’” the subcommittee added.


In its Nov. 30, 2023 statement, the subcommittee said it had previously “revealed evidence that Dr. Fauci prompted the drafting of the now infamous ‘Proximal Origin’ publication to disprove the lab-leak theory. Fauci then cited the paper from the White House podium without disclosing his involvement in prompting the publication.

“Further, the Select Subcommittee revealed that Dr. Fauci was aware of dangerous gain-of-function research occurring in Wuhan, China prior to the emergence of COVID-19, but remained curiously silent to the public,” the statement read.

Following Monday’s interview, Wenstrup said that Fauci’s responses indicated there were “some tremendous flaws in our system” concerning issuing grants.

“Dr. Fauci signed off on all domestic and foreign research grants without reviewing the proposals and admitted that he was unaware if NIAID conducted oversight of the laboratories they fund,” Wenstrup said in the subcommittee statement.

“Clearly, the American people and the United States government are operating with completely different expectations about the responsibilities of our public health leaders and the accountability of our public health agencies,” he added.

But Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) defended Fauci’s responses on this issue, saying “I think it’s probably pretty political that we’re here to begin with. But I think they’re asking questions and he is being very specific in answering.”

She added that the closed-door nature of the interview afforded Fauci the opportunity to “clarify a lot of political points people have tried to make,” without “playing to the cameras.”

Fauci’s testimony was scheduled to continue today, with further questions about the “Proximal Origin” paper and COVID-19 countermeasures.

“I look forward to asking Dr. Fauci further questions about mandates, his role in prompting the ‘Proximal Origin’ publication, and his policy positions related to masks and lockdowns,” Wenstrup said in Monday’s statement.

“Tomorrow’s testimony will continue the Select Subcommittee’s effort to deliver the answers Americans demand and deserve.”

“Data-set manipulation” to describe this type of scientific fraud?




CDC Study Concludes Most Young Children Hospitalized for COVID Were Unvaccinated — After Enrolling 7 Times as Many Unvaxed Kids in Study

The authors of the study published last month in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal used their results to recommend COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for children as young as 6 months and to conclude that unvaccinated kids were unhealthier to begin with.

By Angelo DePalma, Ph.D.Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D.


Link copied

cdc children covid hospital feature

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender’s Top News of the DayIt’s free.

A U.S. government-sponsored study published late last month in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal reported that most young children hospitalized for acute COVID-19 had not received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and were sicker to begin with than vaccinated children.

The authors’ conclusions are true on the surface, but their analysis ignored that more than 7 times as many unvaccinated as vaccinated children were enrolled in their study.

Only 4.5% of trial subjects completed primary COVID series

Investigators led by Laura Zambrano, Ph.D., a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist, recruited 597 children ages 8 months through under age 5 hospitalized for COVID-19 at 28 U.S. pediatric hospitals between Sept. 20, 2022, and May 31, 2023.

Unvaccinated subjects outnumbered subjects who had received at least one COVID-19 shot by 528 to 69, a more than 7-fold difference.

Children were grouped by demographic factors such as race, sex and geographic location, vaccination status (no vaccine, incomplete vaccine series or fully vaccinated) and underlying non-COVID-19 illnesses, or comorbidities.

Only 4.5% of the subjects had completed their primary COVID-19 vaccination series and 7% had received at least one dose.

Cases varied widely in severity, with 174 (29.1% of all subjects) admitted to intensive care and 75 progressing to life-threatening illness.

Fifty-one (8.5% of all subjects) required life support via invasive mechanical ventilation, and three required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, a life-support treatment involving a heart-lung machine.

Based on results from both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, infants 8 months to under age 2 were more vulnerable to serious outcomes than children ages 2 to 4 years.

For example, the youngest subjects had more life-threatening illnesses and the greatest need for high-level respiratory support involving vasoactive infusions — intravenous treatments to maintain normal blood pressure and heart rate. Yet they also had shorter hospital stays.

Investigators concluded that most children hospitalized for COVID-19, including most children with underlying medical conditions, were unvaccinated. On that basis, they called for “strategies to reduce barriers to vaccine access among young children.”

“The Wuhan Cover-Up” by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.


Researchers tested kids for COVID but not other respiratory infections

Zambrano et al. also compared the Pfizer mRNA shot to the Moderna product. They found that children who took the Moderna product were somewhat more likely to experience a serious outcome, however, the numbers from both groups were small and the authors did not subject them to statistical analysis.

Based on their analysis they also calculated and reported, in their “results” section, that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were 40% effective in reducing serious outcomes. However, in their discussion (several sections later), they admitted that “vaccine coverage in this population was too low to evaluate vaccine effectiveness.”

There were two notable limitations to the Zambrano study. Even though the researchers recruited children who were only partially vaccinated the study’s design excluded children who had received any vaccination fewer than 14 days before hospital admission. Therefore no short-term post-vaccination adverse events were included.

Another limitation was that children were tested for COVID-19 but not for all possible respiratory infections, meaning “it is possible that RSV [respiratory syncytial virus], human metapneumovirus or other respiratory viral co-detections influenced disease severity.”

RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”


Media parroted authors’ conclusions

U.S. media (for example here and here) picked up on the Zambrano paper and repeated its conclusion that most hospitalized COVID-19 pediatric patients were unvaccinated — ignoring that the study included more than 7 times as many unvaccinated as vaccinated subjects.

A deeper dive into the data reveals the extent of this error and the discrepancies between what Zambrano et al. reported and what they saw.

Tables 1 and 2 illustrate what the authors got wrong.

These calculations say nothing about the relative outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children because Zambrano et al. either did not perform the relevant calculation — number of cases in each group divided by the number of subjects — or chose not to report the results it generated.

Instead of presenting the number of subjects experiencing the indicated outcome as a percentage of vaccinated or unvaccinated groups, they reported them as a percentage of all subjects experiencing that outcome. Since there were 7 times as many unvaccinated as vaccinated subjects, this approach all but guaranteed the numbers among the unvaxed would be higher.

Here’s an analogy: In a hypothetical study comparing 10 coffee drinkers to 100 abstainers, five drinkers and 10 abstainers reported feeling nervous. Using Zambrano’s logic, 67% of people feeling nervous were abstainers, and just 33% drank coffee. This “proves,” according to Zambrano’s logic, that not drinking coffee doubles (67% vs. 33%) the risk of getting the jitters.

The correct way to view this data is that 10 in 100 abstainers, or 10%, felt jittery but 5 in 10 (50%) of coffee drinkers felt jittery, and that drinking coffee raises the risk of nervousness fivefold (50% vs. 10%).

Table 2 uses the same raw data as Table 1. But instead of reporting vaccinated and unvaccinated data as a percentage of all data, it first calculates the occurrence of these conditions or outcomes in each group and compares the inter-group differences.

Hospital stays were also on average one day shorter for the unvaccinated. The only area where unvaccinated children faired slightly worse was in underlying cardiac issues, but the authors did not address this small difference in their discussion.

Your support helps fund this work, and CHD’s related advocacy, education and scientific research.


Previous study used same tactic

study preceding the Zambrano paper by three weeks used the same tactic to arrive at the same conclusion.

Tannis et al. compared many of the same outcomes as Zambrano in 6,337 unvaccinated and 281 vaccinated children ages 6 months to under 5 years.

All subjects had visited emergency departments for acute respiratory illness from July 2022 to September 2023.

By coincidence, Tannis also calculated vaccine effectiveness to be 40%.

Table 3 presents data from Tannis et al. with percentages reported by Tannis (Tannis %) and the actual values (Actual %).

Vaccinated children were also 68.3% more likely to harbor HCoV, an endemic coronavirus, than the unvaccinated. Similar to SARS-CoV-2 (the COVID-19 virus), HCoV can cause serious illness in immunocompromised individuals and the elderly.

Subscribe to The Defender – It’s Free!

  • Name*
  • Email*


Angelo DePalma, Ph.D.'s avatar

Angelo DePalma, Ph.D.

Angelo DePalma, Ph.D., is a science reporter/editor for The Defender.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D.'s avatar

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D.

Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., holds a master’s degree in computer science and a doctorate in biomedical and health informatics. He practices data science by asking questions of databases that can reveal population-based adverse outcomes of medical interventions.

Sign up for free news and updates from Children’s Health Defense. CHD focuses on legal strategies to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those injured. We can’t do it without your support.

Republishing Guidelines


Former pharma consultant tells Tucker Carlson how drug companies buy off government, media

Big Pharma’s grip on the media is compounded by its enormous influence over regulatory health agencies, like the FDA, and groups that set the standard for medical practice, Calley Means told Tucker Carlson.

Featured Image Tucker Carlson/YouTube screenshot

Mon Feb 5, 2024 – 7:13 pm EST

Listen to this article

0:00 / 6:011X


(LifeSiteNews) — A former food and pharmaceutical consultant explained to Tucker Carlson on Friday that drug ads primarily aim not to gain new customers but to “buy off” the media.

Calley Means, co-founder of TrueMed, an organization promoting prevention-focused healthcare, told Carlson it is an “open secret” that the “news ad spending from pharma is a public relations lobbying tactic” to “buy off the news.” 

The result is that major media organizations not only fail to scrutinize or investigate Big Pharma, but they paint those who reject any standard pharmaceuticals, including vaccines, as backwards and irrational.

Means noticed, for example, that one was framed as a “terrible, anti-science Luddite for asking why the shots that we require our kids to get fundamentally change the immune system of that child for life.”

Big Pharma’s grip on the media is compounded by the enormous influence it exercises on even regulatory health agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and those that set the standard for medical practice, like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). 

Not only are pharmaceutical companies the largest funders of news companies, providing for 50 percent of their budget, Means told Dr. Mark Hyman in a recent podcast, but they are the biggest funders of “government,” “think tanks,” and “academic research.” 

The former pharma consultant cited the diabetes drug Ozempic, which has racked up popularity for its off-label use for weight loss, as the “Rosetta Stone” to understanding “pharma industry corruption.” 

Means pointed out that the drug exploits the massive health crisis of obesity and diabetes in the U.S., where he said now 50 percent of teens and 80 percent of adults are overweight. This is just “one branch of the tree of underlying metabolic dysfunction that’s ravaging our country,” Calley told Carlson, adding that over half of Americans now have prediabetes, including 33 percent of young people.

“If a fish tank is dirty, you clean the tank. You don’t drug the fish,” said Means, emphasizing that health agencies don’t talk about the root cause of obesity or diabetes but prefer to promote a weekly injection marketed for lifetime use “that costs $20,000 per patient.”

That U.S. health and regulatory agencies are not interested in addressing the root cause of disease is evidenced by their nutrition standards, Means suggested. For example, 95 percent of the committee that sets U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidelines for nutrition standards is “paid for by food companies.”


These guidelines say that a two-year-old can consume a diet with 10 percent of added sugar, according to Means, who noted that the group is “completely corrupt.”

He added that 90 percent of government subsidies fund processed food, with 10 percent of all food stamp funding devoted to soda alone. “We’re the only country in the world that allows that,” Means told Carlson.

Against this setting, U.S. health agencies are promoting a drug that Means said is “medically” an “absolute disaster.”

Americans have been filing lawsuits due to severe gastrointestinal issues caused by Ozempic, including stomach paralysis. “We’re seeing most people that take the drug within the first year come off it because… the stomach issues are so pronounced,” said Means.

Disturbingly, the drug has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts frequently enough that the European Union has launched a probe into its effects on suicidal ideation, said Means.

He explained that this makes sense, because the drug induces “gut dysfunction,” and the vast majority of serotonin, which “produces your contentment and happiness,” is “made in the gut.” 

Despite these alarming outcomes, the AAP is promoting the drug for obese teenagers, noted Means.

In fact, groups like the AAP and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) receive the majority of their funding from pharma even as they “have statutory authority to create the standard care for how we practice medicine.”

Major media outlets do not alert the public to any of these facts, nor the fact that Ozempic’s distributor, Novo Nordisk, is “the largest spender on foundational obesity research,” according to Means, or that it “has given $30 million in direct bribes to obesity doctors.”

“You would be hard pressed to find a doctor who treats obesity in this country who has not received some kind of donation [or] research grant… from Novo,” Means told Carlson.

The health executive said there are real potential political remedies for these problems but is skeptical that they will be enforced while Big Pharma’s tentacles remain in major health institutions. 

“The president tomorrow can tell the FDA that the U.S. can no longer be the only country in the world that allows Big Pharma ads on TV news,” said Means.

He could also forbid NIH funding and government grants to anyone with “conflicts of interest.”

“That would sound like a reasonable policy to 95 percent the American people. I think that’s unimpeachable bipartisan policy,” said Means, but he believes that would “cause a conniption.”

The government could further alter agricultural subsidies to promote healthy food and restrict conflicts of interest in universities, which he called “essentially research and development labs for pharma.”

Means questioned why doctors aren’t prescribing “food interventions” and “exercise” for their patients with pre-diabetes.

“If you actually follow the science, that would be the correct medical intervention to reverse that,” he told Carlson.

“A doctor actually can write a note for exercise and food and that actually can open up medical tax advantage dollars and other insurance dollars… But the second you get someone off the chronic disease treadmill, that’s not a profitable patient. There’s nothing more profitable for the pharmaceutical industry than, frankly, a sick kid.”



3 thoughts on “Dr Fauci and covid 19

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *