Elon Musk Calls for Prosecution of Fauci
What can we learn from the COVID-19 pandemic?
At about 3:00 am on 11 December 2022, Elon Musk, CEO of Twitter, tweeted:
igniting a firestorm of criticism on his platform, both from people agreeing with his opinion of Fauci and those who wished to shame Musk for espousing such a negative view of “America’s doctor” as Dr. Fauci is sometimes called.
Did Elon go off the rails or is the firestorm of controversy just the natural result of dissent that has been suppressed by Twitter’s anti-COVID-”disinformation” policies for so long that, once the policies were deactivated (or overridden by the company’s owner), all the pent-up venom came to the fore? Are there truths about COVID-19 that may have been inadvertently suppressed along with known disinformation?
Why Investigate the COVID-19 Response?
With over 20 million people dead from the pandemic, it is imperative that world health and political leaders do what is necessary to avoid repeating this serious disaster. To know how to avoid repeating it, it’s essential to understand, as precisely as possible, what really happened.
If, for example, the COVID-19 virus was created in a lab, it would be prudent to determine which lab, who was doing the research and how the virus jumped from controlled experimentation into the local human population.
If there are existing safe and effective treatments that were overlooked, it behooves us all to understand how and why the treatments were overlooked.
If the prescribed treatments turned out to be unsafe or ineffective, it helps us to avoid repeating disaster if we analyze how the harmful side effects went unnoticed or were ignored and how an ineffective treatment may have slipped through the approval process.
Although these questions tend to be dismissed by many of the customary authorities in the public eye, there are also many highly credentialed and qualified dissenting scientists and doctors who say that these are at least good questions worthy of further study.
Lab Origin?
While early in the pandemic, those who advanced the lab-origin hypothesis were ridiculed, called “conspiracy theorists” and, in many cases, de-platformed from social media and other channels of public discourse, eventually Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times reporter, published his analysis of the relative likelihood of lab-origin compared to natural live origin scenarios1.
Wade’s article stopped short of saying that lab-origin was proven, but simply enumerated the evidence suggesting the scenarios that would give rise to lab-origin were much more probable than the live virus (mutation) scenario.
Nobel Laureate virologist David Baltimore noted that furin cleavage sites on COVID-19’s spike proteins were a strong argument for the possible/probable lab origin of the virus (at one time he called furin cleavage sites a “smoking gun” but later softened his language). The cleavage sites represented a gain-of-function in that they allow a molecule commonly found near cell walls to bind with the spike protein in a way that caused the spike to break free of the larger coronavirus and move on into the infected cell.
Still others, such as Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier2, noted the existence of HIV gene sequences in COVID-19 which, because HIV is generally considered to only be found in humans, is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, to have been inside of a bat where it would have needed to be if it were somehow included in a coronavirus mutation of bat origins.
In all, there were at least four gain-of-function mutations found in COVID-19 and, because normally only one gain-of-function mutation is found in any given new pandemic, partly because the majority of mutations result in loss-of-function, the existence of four gain-of-function mutations simultaneously signaled a very unlikely mutation, akin to a slot machine coming up with four lemons in a row.
The odds against natural origin for COVID-19 started looking astronomical.
So, when Andrew Huff published his recent book, “The Truth About Wuhan” in which he reveals himself as someone who worked with the Wuhan lab through Eco-Health Alliance and claims to “know” that COVID-19 came from the Wuhan labs3, based on his knowledge of the gain-of-function research being done at the time with bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab, many of us were less surprised by this confirmation of what appeared to be the most probable, by far, explanation of COVID-19’s origins than we were surprised simply by the fact that someone with his level of inside knowledge would risk going public with it.
Huff’s account is significant because, as has come out in Congressional testimony, Eco-Health Alliance received significant funding via NIH and NIAID, the latter of which is headed by Dr. Fauci.
Thus, prosecuting Fauci would shine a bright light, using the legal discovery process, on how Fauci’s organization, NIAID, came to skirt around prohibitions (or “pauses”) in gain-of-function research to fund Wuhan’s bat coronavirus gain-of-function research in the months and years leading up to the first recorded cases of COVID-19 in humans in Wuhan, China. The knowledge gained in this discovery process could help change staffing and policies at NIAID and NIH to prevent future gain-of-function research from being done, or, at least from being done without more stringent safety protocols.
Stifling the use of safe and effective generic drugs
Dr Fauci made a number of public statements denying the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin the treatment of COVID-19 4.
However, Dr. Tess Lawrie observes in her meta-analysis of clinical studies using Ivermectin to treat COVID that deaths could be greatly reduced by using Ivermectin in safe dosages under the care of a physician5. Other doctors such as Pierre Kory, Peter McCullough and Robert Monroe concur.
One reason that Ivermectin (IVM) and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) may have been sidelined is because their patents have expired and they are now produced at very low cost my many generic drug manufacturers. But, because vaccines can only be granted EUAs (Emergency Use Authorizations) if there are no existing safe and effective treatments available, the vaccine manufacturers would have to deny the existence of such safe and effective alternatives to their vaccines (if any existed) in order to ensure FDA approval of the EUAs. Since the vaccines are definitely still under patent and far more expensive than either HCQ or IVM, the loss of FDA EUAs would have effectively prevented the sale or use of any and all of the COVID-19 vaccines as well as the profits that would eventually accrue to the vaccine manufacturers.
Would the vaccine manufacturers and/or public health officials lie to protect the profits of the pharmaceutical industry? That’s a question that prosecution of Fauci might help answer.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book, “The Real Anthony Fauci” argues that NIAID as well as some other agencies may now be operating as industry-captured agencies and that this may have been the case going back to the 1980’s when Fauci was leading America’s response to AIDS.
Pushing mRNA “vaccines” that were neither safe nor effective
If Americans had to name one person as the most influential and authoritative influence in their decisions to take the COVID-19 mRNA “vaccines”, most would probably say Dr. Fauci was key. His access to media and his tenure as the highest paid health official in America made him a formidable presence throughout the pandemic.
I don’t often listen to Glen Beck, but if this is true, NIAID has part ownership of mRNA vaccine intellectual property:
Given what we know from RFK Jr’s book, “The Real Anthony Fauci” about how the NIAID incentivizes some of its key employees with royalties for drug-related intellectual property, it appears possible that Fauci could own intellectual property rights for the mRNA vaccines and could potentially have received royalty payments for them the COVID vaccines. If so, the potential conflict of interest is huge. The question of who all received royalty payments for the vaccines is one that should be pursued in the investigation phase of Fauci’s prosecution.
Dr. Fauci himself has admitted that the vaccines don’t protect against infection “overly well”6 so it is unclear how well the vaccines would provide herd immunity -- the main rationale offered as to why young, healthy people with little risk of complications from COVID should get the vaccine and boosters. Perhaps, the vaccines don't support herd immunity "overly well" either.
So much for efficacy. What about safety?
Indicators that the COVID-19 vaccine may be unsafe include both
A number of independent researchers have pointed out that all-cause mortality actually increased after vaccination began in 2021 [ref?] and that the magnitude of the increase was often highest in countries with the highest uptake of the vaccines. [ref?]
The VAERS database has recorded well over 15,000 deaths associated (by timing at least) with taking the COVID vaccines. As it happens this number is larger than the total of all death reports in VAERS for the previous 30 years combined.
In the documentary “Died Suddenly7”, a number of embalmers, coroners and undertakers describe long “white fibrous structures” or clots found in the veins and arteries of vaccinated cadavers. Some of the clots/structures are 2-3 feet long. Although those interviewed had up to 50 years of experience in their fields, none of them could remember seeing anything like these structures prior to the roll-out of the COVID vaccine. Were these clot structures caused by the vaccines? Did staff at NIAID, FDA or NIH know about these structures or blood clotting side effects before the vaccine roll-out?
Summary
In the interest of future public health and safety, it is important to determine to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic may have been caused by gain-of-function research and, if so, who had a hand in the decision-making, who participated in the research and how to prevent future high-risk research projects from being approved or pursued.
It is also important to ascertain if the use of safe and effective generic drugs was wrongly suppressed and, if so, who knew what about the drugs’ usefulness and when did they know it, who ordered policies to make the drugs unavailable and whether their motivation was related to the potential loss of revenue from the vaccines if the safety and efficacy of the generic drugs became widely known.
Finally, if the COVID vaccines turn out to have been the cause of either the mysterious “white fibrous structures” found in vaccinated cadavers or the increased all-cause mortality statistics, how could such lethal side effects have gone undetected in the safety studies done for the vaccines?
If the vaccines were unsafe and ineffective but were distributed and prescribed anyway and if safe and effective (and more economical) alternatives were known to be available but were made unavailable and falsely stigmatized by “horse dewormer” propaganda then not only are the orchestrators of these misguided policies guilty of most of the needless deaths from COVID-19, they would also be guilty of the wrongful deaths and injuries of those who experience adverse effects from the vaccines.
Even a small possibility that any of this is the case should be sufficient cause for investigation. Twenty million dead from COVID and untold millions dead from adverse side effects (we can only guess based on increases in total all-cause deaths) is mass murder on an unimaginable scale. If there is even a small chance that these deaths were preventable and purposely caused or allowed to happen, the decision-makers must be held accountable.
Died Suddenly – The Documentary This film comes with a great deal of excess speculation, in my opinion. I don’t endorse the full documentary, but I do recommend the actual interviews with the embalmer from 5:45 to 28:00. The incidence of “white fibrous structures/clots” is significant and raises important and troubling questions. This substack article is an excellent critique of “Died Suddenly” and presents what we currently know about the science behind the fibrous clots: What is Causing the Blood Clots from "Died Suddenly?" (substack.com)
One more thing...We don't know what Musk was thinking when he offered a cryptic "Prosecute Fauci" statement. The only direct connection between Musk and Fauci is that Fauci was one of the government agents involved in suppressing COVID dissent at Twitter and other social media. Musk may be talking about prosecuting Fauci for First Amendment violations. There is already a pending civil lawsuit, I believe.
Good summary. Thanks for bringing all this together. A few comments. First, I'm not as sure as you that Huff is trustworthy; he may be a limited hangout. IMO, it is just as likely that COVID came from an American lab at Fort Detrick and was brought to Wuhan during the military games in October. Second, yes, it's not just Glen Beck -- NIAID has an IP interest in vaccines that are developed by its contractors, and there are individuals, including Dr F, who reap royalty payments from these arrangements.
A reference for correlation between vaccination rate and COVID deaths is Subramanian, S.V., Kumar, A. Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States. Eur J Epidemiol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7
Finally, let's be careful about endorsing the movie Died Suddenly. It is a propaganda piece, and serves well to shock some people into realizing that the COVID vaccines can be deadly, but the documentation is sloppy, and a few factual errors open us to being dismissed out-of-hand by those who want to do this. https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/what-is-causing-the-died-suddenly