TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

A congressional committee member questioned a USAID representative about whether the agency funded gain-of-function research, presenting a 2015 paper co-authored by the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Dr. Barrick, funded by USAID's PREDICT program through EcoHealth Alliance, as evidence. The paper described creating a novel virus by combining the SARS virus backbone with an s protein from another virus. The committee member cited expert opinions stating this research created a novel virus that grows well in human cells and poses a new risk to humanity. He also mentioned the 2018 DIFUSE project, presented to DARPA and attended by USAID, which proposed creating a coronavirus with a furin cleavage site. He requested the name of the USAID attendee to understand why this project wasn't revealed to the public, especially after COVID-19 emerged. The USAID representative stated the agency had not authorized gain-of-function research and would look into the specific claims and the DARPA meeting. She acknowledged the importance of understanding the past to prevent future risks and assured cooperation with the committee.

In 2021, Fauci denied funding gain of function research in Wuhan, China, but the definition was changed after Tabak's statement. The NIH website altered the definition to only include research capable of creating a pandemic pathogen. Fauci initially denied any involvement, but the definition was changed later. This semantic play raises questions about the truthfulness of their statements.

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is Miss Washington lying? She claimed this practice is common, while you called it isolated and reprehensible. Someone isn't telling the truth. An anonymous FEMA official suggested she received clear guidance. Are they lying too? The investigation is ongoing, but the text message indicates best practices, including staying hydrated and going in pairs, while also advising against visiting Trump homes. This seems common, yet you insist Miss Washington's actions were unacceptable and not in line with FEMA policy. Have you spoken to the 13 individuals involved in the text? You haven't? This reflects a troubling mindset in government, reminiscent of derogatory comments about certain groups. The text message reinforces this mindset. You directed Miss Washington's termination after receiving the message. Do you know who the other official is? You should have that information, not me.

I don't understand why the committee skipped over 30 years of my career and focused on a past incident from graduate school. We should be looking at the last three and a half years because people were killed in a terrorist act. The special agent found that I was involved and I apologize for lying to the committee. I was fired for it.

There is a pattern of inappropriate behavior within the inner circle, including the use of personal email for official business, deleting records to avoid FOIA, editing press releases and letters, providing misleading advice, and advocating for individuals. These actions violate NIH policy and are deemed inappropriate.

A US health official working for Dr. Fauci expressed safety concerns about a lab in Wuhan, China, six years ago. The lab was planning to reverse engineer the Ebola virus, but the official was ordered to delete any mention of Ebola in her report. The lab, which is believed by some to be the source of COVID-19, was visited by the official just before it opened. During the tour, a technician at the lab mentioned the illegal importation of Ebola for study. The official expressed shock and worry about the potential consequences if this information became public. Two days later, she was instructed to delete her comment.

Doctor Moran, a senior advisor to Fauci, discussed deleting emails to avoid transparency, which goes against NIH policies. He also shared internal discussions with doctor Daszak and helped craft responses to FOIA releases, which is not in line with NIH guidelines. Doctor Tabak expressed concern over these actions. Moran is currently employed by NIH.

The transcript discusses emails between individuals regarding FOIA requests, potential kickbacks, and editing correspondence related to EcoHealth Alliance. There are mentions of using personal email for official business, deleting emails, and avoiding FOIA requests. The conversation also touches on protecting individuals involved and minimizing damage. Additionally, there are references to joking remarks, personal matters, and potential dishonesty in testimony. Overall, the dialogue reveals a complex web of communication and actions taken to navigate sensitive issues.

I advised the president to shut down the country, despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. I did not recommend locking anything down, but rather made a difficult decision to protect public health.

Doctor Moran, a senior advisor to Fauci, discussed deleting emails to avoid FOIA requests, which goes against NIH policies. He also mentioned avoiding "smoking guns" in emails. Moran shared internal discussions with Daszak and helped craft responses to FOIAs, actions not in line with NIH policies. Tabak expressed concern over these actions. Moran is still employed by NIH. The questions raised highlight potential transparency issues within the NIH. Translation: Doctor Moran, a senior advisor to Fauci, discussed deleting emails to avoid FOIA requests, which goes against NIH policies. He also mentioned avoiding "smoking guns" in emails. Moran shared internal discussions with Daszak and helped craft responses to FOIAs, actions not in line with NIH policies. Tabak expressed concern over these actions. Moran is still employed by NIH. The questions raised highlight potential transparency issues within the NIH.

I was involved in policy determination, but it's hard to say if I became too involved. While I'm associated with a specific policy, the reality was more complex. I never explicitly said we should take action immediately. Instead, I sometimes went beyond my scientific advisory role to make people aware of the potential consequences of current trends.

In 2014, a gain of function moratorium was implemented in the US due to lab accidents. Despite this, gain of function research continued in China with funding from Dr. Fauci. The NIH lifted the moratorium in 2017 without proper consultation. There are concerns that US-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology may have led to the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Ebright believes that lapses in oversight of this research could have caused the pandemic and may lead to future ones.

I advised the president to shut down the country, despite knowing it would have significant economic consequences. I did not recommend locking anything down, but rather made a difficult decision to protect public health.

The speaker was asked about USAID funding for research in Wuhan and at the University of North Carolina. They denied the accusation and did not have specific details. The speaker avoided directly answering if USAID money was used in Wuhan. They preferred respectful questions and moved on without giving a clear denial.

We did not fund gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The NIH has acknowledged funding research on a bat coronavirus that was enhanced in a lab, making it more contagious. Senator Paul questioned whether I wish to retract my statement from May 11, asserting that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan. I stand by my statement and have never lied before Congress. The NIH provided grants to the EcoHealth Alliance for experiments with bat coronaviruses in Wuhan. If anyone is lying, it is you, Senator. Evidence suggests the virus may have originated from the lab, and those who funded it will be held responsible. The NIH admitted to funding controversial gain of function research, contradicting my earlier claims. I maintain that I have not lied before Congress. Case closed.

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.

The speaker was asked about USAID funding for work in Wuhan and creating weaponized coronaviruses. They denied the accusation and stated they did not have specific details. When pressed if USAID money went to Wuhan, they avoided a direct answer and requested respectful questions. The conversation ended with the speaker being accused of giving a non-denial denial.

Speaker 0: I find information like this, you know, inserts for the vaccine. Paper's there, and there's nothing printed on it. I find that very interesting, disheartening, disgusting, and lots of other words, but then it gets better. It just keep wait. There's more. It just keeps happening. The CDC redacts every single word of a 148 page study on a myocarditis after COVID vaccination. So I asked research to print the study for me. 148 pages. The entire thing is redacted. What good does a study do if there's nothing there? Then I wanna know, wait, what might have been there that they needed to redact it? That's even scarier. Speaker 1: We're witnessing an active cover up of a colossal consumer product safety debacle that is is basically affecting the entire world. Mhmm. So in The United States, our CDC, National Institutes of Health, and the FDA are actively involved in a cover up. And the same is occurring in The UK with the MHRA, Europe with European medicine agencies, and Australia with the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Something is going on that's very big. Each one of these companies that puts out a product has an obligation to produce ninety days of safety monitoring after their product comes out. It's a regulatory dossier. If somebody has a problem with the new product and they call the company like Pfizer, Pfizer has to report, write down what happened, and they have to collate that in a report and produce it and make it publicly available. When it came to ninety days with Pfizer, the first vaccine that came out, remember Pfizer was approved 12/10/2020. Pfizer didn't produce the report. And then people started asking, well, what's happening with your vaccine? And Pfizer would not disclose what happened. And then it went to court. And the lawyer for the FDA stepped in and said they don't wanna release Pfizer's dossier for fifty five years. Mhmm. Oh. Fifty five years. And the the the plaintiff pushed. And finally, slowly, the Pfizer dossier came out. Pfizer recorded one thousand two hundred and twenty three deaths with their product within ninety days of release. People were calling Pfizer in desperation watching their family members die after taking the vaccine. Pfizer recorded over twelve hundred new adverse events, new problems that doctor Boden has talked to you about that we are grappling with the entire time. But the point is our FDA worked to cover this up. The FDA should be regulating this company. FDA should have been having at least monthly meetings and fully disclosing what was going on with these novel vaccines, which are a genetic transfer technology platform.

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.

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.

We did not fund gain of function research in Wuhan. A bat coronavirus was enhanced in a lab. NIH funded research at Wuhan Institute, making a virus more contagious. Fauci denies lying to congress. Questions raised about experiments in Wuhan lab. NIH funded EcoHealth Alliance for bat coronavirus experiments. Fauci denies lying, blames Senator Paul. NIH admitted funding gain of function research in Wuhan lab. Fauci insists he did not lie.

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.

In a discussion about a Biden administration report on Gaza, Speaker 1 recounts Her resignation over what she perceived as amisleading conclusion. She says, "I said that report will haunt us. And it does, and it haunts me. The determination that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance is patently, demonstrably false." In April, Stacey Gilbert was asked for her input on the administration’s report regarding whether Israel was committing war crimes in Gaza. Speaker 0 notes that Gilbert was asked for input, and Gilbert confirms she advised that the conclusion was not the case. She states, "The subject matter experts were removed, and the report was moved up to a higher level. We were told you will see the report when it is released publicly." When the report was released, it "just doesn't include what you had to say?" Gilbert responds, "I wasn't sure I read that correctly. I read it again and I sent an email then that I would resign as a result of that." Overall, the exchange highlights Gilbert’s claim that the report claimed Israel was not blocking humanitarian assistance, despite her advice to the contrary, the removal of subject matter experts, the report being elevated, and her subsequent decision to consider resigning after the public release did not reflect her input.

I was accused of being part of a propaganda effort to censor those questioning the origin of the virus. I stand by my assertion that the virus is not a lab construct, which aligns with the intelligence community's conclusion. I cannot control how my work is used. It is wrong to censor and lie to the public, and I should have done better.