What Tony did last

[Evvy_dense]

For what it’s worth.
Extracts from the article written by Adam Andrzejewski of OpenTheBooks.com, who went to court to get the official record of Tony Fauci’s movements before the p(l)andemic.
I included what looked like it might be significant. The full article is on the CHD link.
A lot (60,000) of background documents have not been passed over, but OpenThe Books can ask for individual documents.

“For a government bureaucrat, this sure was one tightly held calendar.”

ED

21/10/22 Fauci’s Calendar: What Was He Doing in the Months Before the Pandemic?
After filing an expensive lawsuit, OpenTheBooks.com finally got the National Institutes of Health to release Dr. Anthony Fauci’s work calendar — here’s what it shows.

Nov. 12, 2019: Fauci flies to the Netherlands. His multi-day itinerary is not listed. The Netherlands is home to the father of “gain-of-function,” high-risk researcher Dr. Ron Fouchier.

Fauci’s NIH institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), paused (2014) then restarted (Jan. 2019) funding to the controversial researcher who (using NIH funds) created an H5N1 bird flu in his lab with pandemic potential. He did so by passaging the virus through ferrets multiple times, until it gained a new function by going airborne and infecting a ferret in a different cage.

Nov. 25, 2019: Fauci joins Ambassador Deborah Birx, the Global AIDS Coordinator at a World AIDS Day evening event hosted by the Business Council for International Understanding. On Feb. 27, 2020, Birx is appointed to join Fauci on Trump’s COVID-19 Task Force.

Earlier that day, Fauci has a “Pre-Brief for US Japan Biodefense Meeting.” In 2004, as I previously reported at Forbes, Fauci received a permanent pay adjustment for his “biodefense” work. Fauci is the top-paid federal employee, specifically because he was paid to prevent the next pandemic.

…On the morning of Dec. 19, billionaire Bill Gates tweeted out his own hopes for the coming year and his now prescient prediction: “one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”

Today, we only know about these meetings, because our organization at OpenTheBooks.com, in partnership with the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch, sued the NIH in federal court. NIH had refused to even acknowledge our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

So, for the first time, here is our exclusive release of Fauci’s official calendar.

For a government bureaucrat, this sure was one tightly held calendar.

…Jan. 23, 2020: Fauci had an 8 a.m., in-person meeting with Dr. James LeDuc. LeDuc ran one of the few BSL-4 (biosafety level-4) biocontainment labs in the country (think: moon-suit stuff), at the University of Texas Medical Branch, where he has long-trained Chinese scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) lab in BSL-4 biosafety procedures.

Emails acquired by FOIA from the U.S. Right To Know (USRTK) organization revealed that LeDuc was sending backchannel emails with his Wuhan colleagues to get information on the novel coronavirus outbreak, and even soliciting edits and corrections from Wuhan’s so-called “bat lady” Shi Zhengli for his April 2020 Congressional testimony.

LeDuc’s emails show he was communicating with his virologist colleague Yuan Zhiming, who was in charge of the WIV BSL-4 lab. LeDuc wrote an op-ed published on January 24 about his U.S.-China working relationship.

It’s possible this drop-by visit by LeDuc was to let Fauci know what he was hearing from Wuhan, and perhaps, not put that news in email.

By 4:30 that afternoon, LeDuc and former Ft. Detrick BSL-4 biolab director Dave Franz joined HHS Robert Kadlec for a conference call, a call revealed in USRTK’s document production from the University of Texas (page 3,409).

Franz emailed a brief note that same day “to facilitate [the] call.” The email described his and LeDuc’s work since 2007 as establishing a relationship with Chinese scientists (pg 115).

In other words, LeDuc was in town to talk about China and the Wuhan lab with top HHS and former military biolab officials.

Thus, while the public discussion was and would remain that the virus had a natural origin, behind the scenes, people were being briefed on the U.S.-Chinese scientists’ interactions and the Wuhan lab itself.

…An hour earlier, Fauci had a call with Peter Hotez about an “Anti-SARS vaccine candidate.” Hotez is an NIH-funded, Texas-based scientist and vaccine researcher, who had a $6 million NIH grant since 2012 studying a “SARS vaccine for biodefense.”

Hotez developed a non-mRNA vaccine model, that won recent approval for distribution in some foreign countries, such as India.

… Jan. 27: From 2:30-3:30 p.m., Fauci has an “NSC Deputy Call” in the NIH SCIF. (SCIF stands for “Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility” and is usually a room reserved for sensitive or classified briefings.) Trump’s NSC deputy at the time was Matthew Pottinger. The subject of the call is not noted on the calendar.

(Also on Jan. 27, Fauci met with the CEO of Moderna, Stephane Bancel.)

… Jan. 27: If he didn’t know before, emails released to the U.S. House Oversight and Reform Committee reveal that on this date, Fauci got definitive word from his staff that NIAID, his institute, funded a bat coronavirus grant to EcoHealth Alliance who collaborated with the WIV and Ralph Baric. If the virus was from the WIV, Fauci now knew he had funded the Chinese lab.

Jan. 31: Fauci is in the Oval Office, meeting, presumably, with the president.

Feb. 4: By this date, according to released emails, Fauci and the federally funded scientists he consults with, have decided that COVID-19 came from nature via a bat, through some intermediate species. Behind the scenes, they are drafting papers arguing that any position besides a natural origin is a conspiracy theory.

Yet, Fauci keeps meeting with Anthony Ruggiero, NSC’s biodefense and China expert (1/25 and 2/5). Are they thinking COVID-19 may have come from a lab leak?

Feb. 11: Fauci has a meeting with Ralph Baric, the University of North Carolina coronavirus scientist, arguably the nation’s foremost expert on bat coronaviruses. The meeting includes Emily Erbelding, the director of the NIAID Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.

Baric had a long working relationship with the Wuhan lab, and, it would later be revealed, applied (unsuccessfully) for a $14 million DARPA grant with the WIV and EcoHealth Alliance to insert a furin cleavage site into a chimeric bat virus and passage it through “humanized” mice to see if it had pandemic potential.

Some virologists have called that leaked document a recipe for the COVID-19 virus.

The Fauci/Baric meeting backs up against the NSC meeting with Phil Ferro. It’s not clear where Baric is during the meeting, if in-person or by phone. Was Baric on the NSC call or listening in?

(Previously at Forbes, I wrote about how Fauci continued to fund scientists like Baric and Fouchier by giving exemptions and narrowly defining scrutinized research — circumventing funding bans by Presidents Obama and Trump.)

Feb. 17: “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” a paper that Fauci apparently helped edit and was organized by NIH-funded Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, stated that the COVID-19 virus was from nature and called any suggestion otherwise a conspiracy.

Largely based on this paper, scientific discussion and social media posts suggesting a lab leak were censored as misinformation.

… Between Jan. 27 and Feb. 24, Fauci meets or has calls with Stephane Bancel, the CEO of Moderna (1/27); Jeremy Farrar of Wellcome Trust (British health non-profit focused on vaccines) (2/1); BioNTech executive and former NIH staffer Gary Nabel (2/6) and Johnson & Johnson chief scientist Paul Stoffels (2/24).

Fauci’s Calendar: What Was He Doing in the Months Before the Pandemic?

[Evvy_dense]

Meanwhile, in another part of Tony…
Sounds like they think this is big.
ED

New Study Blames COVID on NIH, University of North Carolina — Finds Fauci and Baric’s Fingerprints on Pandemic Bug

Critics have long questioned why the National Institutes of Health would fund experiments by University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill professor Ralph Baric to develop a technique for hiding evidence of human tampering in laboratory-created super viruses.
By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
J. Jay Couey, Ph.D.
Charles Rixey

Critics have long questioned why the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would fund experiments by University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill (UNC) professor Ralph Baric to develop a technique for hiding evidence of human tampering in laboratory-created super viruses.

Aided by some $220.5 million in National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funding, Baric developed a so-called “Seamless Ligation” technique, which he boasted could perfectly conceal all evidence of human tampering in laboratory-created viruses. Baric nicknamed his invention the “no-see’m” method.

Now a new study, “Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV2,” published on the preprint server bioRxiv, shows that — apparently unbeknownst to Baric — the “seamless ligation” concealment gimmick leaves its own minute but legible signature.

Most momentously, these same researchers have discovered that damning signature in the genome of the virus that causes COVID-19.

Baric’s technique has long been controversial. “It’s the artist that doesn’t sign his name to the painting; the virologist that doesn’t put his signature into the virus to let us know whether or not it is emerging naturally or whether it is produced in a laboratory,” said Jeffrey Sachs, chair of The Lancet COVID-19 Commission, a task force that investigated the origins of COVID-19.

“All of it says, my God, there was really a big, very risky research agenda underway.”

This month, Sachs published the results of his 22-month investigation in The Lancet, including the damaging conclusion that COVID-19 was probably laboratory-generated and that the technology probably came from NIH-funded science.

Referring to Baric’s seamless ligation methodology, evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein observed:

“It’s the exact opposite of what you would do if your interest was public health. Public health scientists would be marking their enhancements with red flags — not devising ways to hide them. The only reason you would want a concealer is to advance a sinister purpose — such as illegal bioweapons development — some mischief that the scientist didn’t want traceable back to his lab.”

Baric taught his “no-see’m” method to the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s (WIV) “Bat Lady” Shi Zhengli in 2016. In return, Baric received Chinese coronaviruses collected by Shi from bats in Yunnan province. (Scientists have linked the COVID-19 genome’s pedigree to closely related bats.)

$2 Million Match! Click Here to Double Your Impact!

Shi and her colleagues at the Wuhan Institute subsequently demonstrated their mastery of Baric’s high-risk technique in a series of published — and highly controversial — gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan lab. It has been even more puzzling to his critics that Baric, again with NIAID funding, chose to share this dangerous technique for weaponizing pathogens with Chinese scientists who have clear links to the Chinese military.

Experts say that the implications of this new study could be far-reaching. By pointing the finger at Baric, the study raises the possibility of potentially devastating liability for the NIAID and the University of North Carolina and other parties.

Scientists, including those close to Dr. Anthony Fauci, have repeatedly pointed out that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, has genomic sequences that appear inconsistent with natural evolution: The COVID-19 virus is no longer infectious in bats, and its spiked protein feature — which is unknown in this family of coronavirus — includes numerous mutations that make it ideally infectious in humans.

The closest known coronavirus relative — a coronavirus from the Wuhan lab — is 96.2% identical to SARS-CoV-2. The peculiar spike accounts almost completely for the entire 3.8% difference. Oddly, there are multiple novel mutations in the spike and almost none in the rest of the genome.

Natural evolution would be expected to leave mutations distributed evenly across the genome. The fact that virtually all the mutations occur on the spike led these scientists to suspect that that particular Wuhan lab coronavirus collected by Shi Zhengli is the direct progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 and that its new spike was implanted through engineering.

However, the unmistakable fingerprints of lab engineering were absent — leaving many experts wondering whether Baric’s technique was used to assemble a novel coronavirus with the engineered spike while removing the evidence of lab generation.

This new study connects the biological breadcrumbs that link federally funded research to a global pandemic. That trail leads directly to UNC and NIAID.

The authors of the study — a team of researchers from Duke University, University Clinics of Würzburg and an industry group — identified a characteristic signature in the amino acid code. That indelible artifact could only have emerged from Baric’s “no-see’m” methodology.

In an interview last spring, Baric himself confessed, that at the time the pandemic began, only two or three labs in the world were using his protocol – including his UNC lab and the WIV.

The study’s authors’ conclusions rest on the presence of unique sites in the COVID-19 virus. These sites allow special enzymes called “restriction enzymes” to cut the DNA into building blocks of unique size that then can be “stitched together in the correct order of the viral genome,” according to the study’s authors.

Essentially, Baric’s technique leaves behind unique spellings in the “genetic vocabulary.” The new words include “odd spelling choices” subtly distinguishing them from typical viral vocabulary.

The magic of Baric’s “no-see’m” technique is to invisibly weave these telltale “spelling” changes into the viral sequence between relevant genes without altering the viral protein. This is like changing the “spelling” of the word without changing its meaning; the casual listener will never notice the difference.

The research team used forensic tools to drill down on minute “spelling differences” in the SARS-CoV2 genome that betray laboratory tampering using the “no-see’m” technique.

Consider how a Brit would spell “colour,” “manoeuvre” or “paediatric.” The choice to spell a word in a certain way can reveal your nation of origin. Similarly, these nearly imperceptible changes in the viral sequence give away the laboratory origins of this virus.

In sharing his seamless ligation technique with Shi Zhengli, Baric assured that the WIV possessed all the required elements of the assembly process. EcoHealth Alliance’s infamous DEFUSE proposal describes the same techniques in detail. (submitted to The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, in 2018).

The world now has proof positive that SARS-CoV2 is an engineered laboratory creation generated with technology developed by Ralph Baric with U.S. government funding.

Prosecutors and private attorneys representing clients injured by the COVID-19 pandemic now have a smoking gun. The gun points at humanity. Forensic scientists have now successfully lifted faint but precise fingerprints from the lethal pistol’s grip and trigger. Those fingerprints belong to the NIAID and the University of North Carolina.

Baric is Fauci’s favorite gain-of-function scientist. The cascade of NIAID funding to Baric and his UNC lab has financed 152 studies approaching a quarter-billion dollars.

Those federal grants have made Baric the global kingpin of gain-of-function science. In conformance with standard practice, it is probable that UNC pockets one-quarter to one-half of NIH’s financial felicities to Baric for “administrative costs.”

These monumental payments have probably incentivized UNC to turn a blind eye to Baric’s reckless experiments and to his controversial decision to transfer his dangerous technologies to a Chinese military laboratory known to suffer from deficient safety protocols and shoddy construction that make it, in the words of Congressional investigators, less secure than a “dentist’s office.”

UNC’s role in enabling the questionable conduct may have precipitated a global pandemic that could easily give rise to liability for negligence.

UNC and NIAID’s liability is now clear. But do we have positive proof that the Wuhan lab created the monstrosity that caused COVID-19?

The cumulative evidence strongly suggests that the Wuhan lab used Baric’s methodologies to cobble together the chimeric virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic. But a few missing puzzle pieces still prevent us from definitively proving that this dangerous construction project occurred at the Wuhan lab.

As The Lancet Commission report concluded, the released emails show that NIH’s Dr. Francis Collins, NIAID’s Fauci and EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Daszak, and others are continuing to collaborate with Shi Zhengli and Chinese officials to suppress the public release of information that would allow us to complete this picture. Stay tuned!

New Study Blames COVID on NIH, University of North Carolina — Finds Fauci and...

[PatB]

For anyone that has read Kennedy’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci” or watched the recent film, there can be no doubt that this guy is not only self-aggrandising, but is complicit in some of the biggest lies told before, during, and since the end of the plandemic.

For what it’s worth, I think the whole gain of function rabbit hole is a good psy op distraction from the fact that there is and was no pandemic. Yes, people are getting ill. However, I think there is sufficient well researched evidence to show the plandemic measures were largely to blame and perhaps there were other causes (five gee anyone?), however, gain of function leaked accidently or deliberately takes the focus away from the imposition of the total surveillance state and owning nothing yet still being happy!

[Evvy_dense]

@PatB

For what it’s worth, I think the whole gain of function rabbit hole is a good psy op distraction from the fact that there is and was no pandemic.

If the waters are lapping at the feet of Fauci and his cohorts, does it really qualify as a spy-op.
But I take your point about the focus. Fundamental issues of who brought the pandemic into being, who gave it life, are important but OTOH, truth seekers can spend too much time digging ever deeper for themselves and their peer group, and forget that the public aren’t becoming any more aware of the basics of the scam.
I think the value of a line of pursuit depends on who the target audience is. For some of the prominent dissident medics, the realisation that they were being lied to all along seems to have strengthened their resolve and useful activity. Look at people like Mercola, McCullough, Meryl Nass, Del Bigtree, the same people the powers accuse of misleading the public, and egging on the anti-vax movement. They are doing a lot right IMO, but for those with much smaller reaches it could be that they would do more good by supporting publicising the main truths and platforms, than educating themselves to the nth degree on the minutiae. (Note to self ) Cheers PatB

[PatB]

Hi @Evvy_dense . You’re right about Fauci et al. However, consider that perhaps he is just being made a scapegoat for what is undoubtedly a huge crime, but a crime being used as a smokescreen for the much bigger picture.

PS I too follow the minutiae if I don’t get bored with it and rely on guys like you to analyse it for guys like me.