TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Vince agrees that flu is a major pathogen with high virulence and transmissibility. Other pathogens may have one but not the other. The panel focuses on flu proposals, which is a common sentiment among those outside the field as well.

First speaker: Implant aborted baby parts into lab animals. You heard of that sort of research? Second speaker: We did an analysis a few years ago showing that over ninety percent of experiments with using human fetal tissue and putting them involved animals were funded by Fauci's NIAID. First speaker: Do you know where they're getting the aborted human fetal tissue? Second speaker: A lot of it is happening at colleges and universities that have affiliated hospitals that perform that procedure. First speaker: Madam Chair, I think Second speaker: we First speaker: need to look into that as well.

I'm deeply honored by the nomination for NIH director. The NIH is the crown jewel of American biomedical sciences, but post-pandemic, American confidence in science has declined. If confirmed, my goals are to refocus NIH research on solving America's chronic disease crisis, ensure NIH-supported science is replicable and reliable, and establish a culture of respect for free speech and scientific dissent. The NIH must recommit to funding the most innovative biomedical research possible and embrace transparency while vigorously regulating risky research that could cause a pandemic. I will work with congress to guarantee that. I respect the work and mission of the NIH. I will carry out President Trump's agenda of making the public science institutions of this country worthy of trust and serve to make America healthy again.

Taxpayers fund the NIH to support scientists in finding cures and solutions for drug-related health issues.

Speaker 0 proposes that the Justice Department should immediately begin an investigation into medical boards and the alleged collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and medical boards that delicenses physicians who strive to heal and treat patients. The plan also calls for the Justice Department to examine medical journals corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry and to explain that they will be subject to criminal and civil RICO actions if they do not provide a pathway to stop revoking studies and refusing to publish research that challenges the mercantile interests of pharmaceutical companies. The overall aim is to change the way business is conducted at NIH.

DOGE is a department with broad authority analyzing payment systems across various departments like USAID and the Department of Education. Their goal is to identify waste, fraud, and abuse of power by following the money. This information allows department secretaries and Congress to make necessary changes. Congress, holding the checkbook, will use budget reconciliation to implement DOGE's recommendations. My committee will use this oversight to ensure full transparency for the American people, bringing forward legislative changes and budget suggestions. This collaboration is crucial to address America's debt and secure a brighter future. We must work together to dig ourselves out of debt.

The speaker questions the lack of transparency regarding the sharing of royalties by officials at the CDC, NIH, and FDA who are responsible for approving drugs and vaccines. They mention that Congress needs to enforce full disclosure to eliminate conflicts of interest. The speaker reveals that NIH researchers have received significant amounts of money, but the details are not disclosed. They also highlight their unsuccessful attempts to obtain nonclassified records of NIH grants. The lack of action from the Department of Justice and Democrats further complicates the situation.

NIH did fund research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through ECHO Health, depending on how you define gain of function research. If you refer to the broader term, then yes, it was funded. This type of research occurs in many labs across the country and is not regulated because it does not pose any threat or harm.

We formed a civic committee with a focus on including people from different backgrounds. Our committee is determined to address various issues and ensure transparency.

According to Speaker 1, Dr. Fauci was informed via email on January 27, 2020, that NIAID had a financial connection to the Wuhan Institute through EcoHealth Alliance. Speaker 1 believes NIH was funding gain of function research. Speaker 1 also claims American tax dollars likely funded gain of function research that created the virus, not only from NIH, but also from the State Department, USAID, and DOD.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss government funding for scientific and medical research, focusing on a grant referred to as a Doge grant and a series of other NSF-funded projects. The exchange opens with Speaker 0 asking, “What is a birthing person?” and presses Speaker 1 to identify who birthing people are, including whether it is another word for a woman. Speaker 1 says he is not familiar with the Doge grant and notes that he takes a position that “all kinds of government research, medical, pharmacy” should be considered, but does not clarify the term further. Speaker 0 labels the term as erasure language and asks again whether a conference titled “gender equity in the mathematical study of commutative algebra” is a valid form of government spending. Speaker 1 replies that mathematical research of all types is deserving of government support. Speaker 0 asks about “women and non binary mathematicians” as described on the National Science Foundation’s website. Speaker 1 again supports government investment in mathematics broadly, stating, “I think all kinds of government investment should be dedicated toward mathematics.” When Speaker 0 questions whether there should be any limit on spending, Speaker 1 reiterates that he is talking about Doge, and notes he is not familiar with the particular grant but supports government investment in mathematical biology. Speaker 0 introduces another grant, “TranscendentHealth, adapting an LGB plus inclusive teen pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys,” and asks whether that is a useful form of tax spending. Speaker 1 says he is not familiar with that grant but emphasizes that bench research and government investment in scientific and pharmacotherapy are important, though he does not describe the grant’s specifics. Speaker 0 then asks about “the racialized basis of trait judgments from faces,” stating it is a $500,000 NSF grant, and asks for Speaker 1’s view. Speaker 1 confirms unfamiliarity with the subject matter but again asserts that government investment in all kinds of scientific research is of utmost importance. The conversation moves to “prostate steroid therapy and cardiovascular risk in the transgender female,” with Speaker 0 pressing on the usefulness of funding. Speaker 1 maintains that government investment in scientific research is important, without further qualification. The exchange ends with Speaker 0 thanking Speaker 1 for his testimony, and Speaker 1 acknowledging appreciation for the opportunity to testify.

I want to collaborate with Congress to ensure appropriate regulation of any risky research. The NIH should not engage in research that could potentially cause a pandemic, and I am committed to working with Congress to prevent such occurrences. Transparency is crucial for building trust. If confirmed, I pledge to lead the NIH as a scientific organization committed to openness. As a citizen, I've noticed that Freedom of Information Act requests from the NIH were often heavily redacted during the pandemic. To foster trust, we must be transparent. If confirmed as the NIH leader, I fully commit to ensuring that the American people have access to all NIH activities with limited obfuscation, which has unfortunately characterized the NIH's interactions with the public.

Our research is increasingly limited to PPI and US government-funded projects, which are now a smaller portion of biotech funding. The biotech landscape is more complex now. The private sector may not follow our oversight recommendations if they don't receive US government funding.

Did USAID fund coronavirus research in Wuhan, China? We did not fund gain of function research. The PREDICT program, which ended in 2019, did have grants that may have gone to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I have requested records from the PREDICT program to understand the funding and research conducted, but USAID has not provided these documents. Despite multiple requests and a letter from 25 senators, we have received no information. We want to know about any grants related to coronaviruses, especially those that could have led to COVID-19. The lack of transparency raises suspicions about what information is being withheld. We seek clarity on all research proposals related to coronaviruses funded by the U.S. government.

I served in the Marine Corps for 15 years, specializing in WMD. I was an instructor and worked with the Department of State. As the WMD chief, I oversaw the deployment of 2000 marines to embassies worldwide. I am also a member of the international group, Drastic, investigating the origin of the pandemic. Around 70-80% of the evidence presented to Congress comes from Drastic's findings. I worked with Major Murphy and together we released a grant proposal showing intent to create a virus similar to SARS CoV 2. Currently, I am collaborating with colleagues in Japan, Germany, and the United States, preparing evidence and affidavits for a future grand jury hearing to hold Fauci and the NIH accountable.

If I'm confirmed as NIH Director, I pledge to ensure the American people have complete transparency into all NIH activities. I commit to openness and limited obfuscation, which has unfortunately characterized the NIH's past interactions. This begins with being very visible.

What qualifies a scientist or doctor for the National Institutes of Health? It's essential they adhere to empirical methods, evidence-based science, and transparency in publishing data. The NIH has overseen a significant decline in American health, and accountability is crucial. There's concern over the integrity of certain studies, such as those on amyloid plaques related to Alzheimer's, which have been labeled fraudulent. The focus should be on identifying corrupt practices rather than dismissing differing scientific opinions. Do you have a medical degree? No. If you're seeking high-quality CBD, visit jonescbd.com for top-rated products, including a special Dreamwave formula for deep sleep. Experience the benefits and support the broadcast.

I believe transparency can be enhanced by including academics, industry experts, and subject matter experts in the review group, as well as publicizing their deliberations and identifying group members. Various arguments for transparency have been discussed in the past, and it is important to consider all perspectives on this issue. If transparency is a concern, it is crucial to clarify what it means to you.

NIH funded research at Wuhan Institute of Virology through ECHO Health, including gain of function research. This type of research is common in labs nationwide and is not regulated because it is deemed harmless.

Some committee members were concerned about making the list too broad, fearing a difficult review process and unnecessary restrictions on research. Transparency was a key issue, with a desire for a transparent review process while maintaining some level of confidentiality. There were discussions about potential oversight by different organizations, but concerns were raised about the balance between transparency and secrecy. Maintaining transparency is important, but opinions on what constitutes transparency can vary.

Taxpayers fund the NIH to support scientists in finding cures and solutions for drug-related health issues.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the politicization of science and changes at the NIH. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, the NIH incorporated what Speaker 1 characterizes as political agendas rather than scientific agendas into its portfolio, with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) being the most prominent example. A chunk of NIH funding went to projects focused on achieving social objectives rather than the health mission. Every NIH employee allegedly had to write a loyalty oath to DEI principles and was evaluated on devotion to the cause. Researchers inside and outside the NIH could access funds, with outside researchers more easily securing money if they promised to conduct DEI research, according to Speaker 1. Much of that research allegedly lacked a real scientific basis and was not science. Speaker 1 provides an example of projects they worked to deprioritize: a project asking whether structural racism is the root reason why African Americans have worse hypertension outcomes. The problem, they say, is that there is no way to test the hypothesis because, if structural racism is the cause, there is no workable control group to test the idea as true. They assert that such research did not translate into better health for anybody, including minority populations. They describe these projects as political agendas that do not belong in a science agency. The stated mission is to improve the health of everybody, including minority populations, but only if projects are clearly scientific, well defined, and have a real chance of improving health. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, summarizing that there were ideological or political projects receiving NIH funding. Speaker 1 confirms and adds another practice: when a good science project ended the year with leftover funds, program officers would approach researchers with leftover money and offer a “diversity supplement”—an add-on tied to DEI that was not actual science—to obtain extra funding. This, they claim, was a waste of taxpayer money with no real health benefit. They say they have since gotten rid of all of that.

The speaker claims research funding has not been cut, but indirect funding to institutions has been targeted. According to the speaker, the administration wants to cut indirect funding, meaning more money goes to researchers. The speaker says the guidance from Bobby Kennedy and the Trump administration empowers frontline researchers and disempowers government bureaucrats. The speaker states that more money will flow to researchers, not university or government bureaucrats, and no services have been cut. The speaker says there's an attack on bureaucracy, citing Harvard getting $0.70 on the dollar for bureaucracy, not research. Cutting indirect costs gets more money to researchers. The speaker claims the administration is focused on empowering researchers, getting money to scientists, and asking them to do bold research on why people are getting sick.

Speaker 0 asked if research beyond HHS-funded work is included in the review process. Speaker 1 mentioned that currently, it focuses on HHS-funded work. Speaker 0 inquired about expanding the scope to include agencies like DARPA. Speaker 1 explained that such agencies typically don't engage in the type of work being reviewed, but suggested a further discussion offline.

This process only applies to federally funded research, not university funded research. Vulnerabilities in university research may be outside our scope, but they are a reality.