Mask goggles
Composite photograph ©2020 by Brian Cohen.

Fauci Admits Recommendations Not Based On Science During the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Pandemic

This includes “social distancing” and requiring children to wear masks.

Anthony Fauci served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 through 2022. He was the de facto representative of the public health response in the United States during the 2019 Novel Coronavirus pandemic — but Fauci admits that some of his recommendations were not based on science.

Fauci Admits Recommendations Not Based On Science During the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Pandemic

The transcript from an interview with Fauci from January of 2024 — which lasted approximately 14 hours over two days — was recently released by Brad Wenstrup, who is both the chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic and a representative of Congress who serves the second district in Ohio. He earned his Doctor of Podiatric Medicine degree at the Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine of Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science.

According to this official memorandum with regard to the following topics that were asked of Fauci during that interview:

  • Social Distancing: The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation forced on citizens of the United States by federal health officials was arbitrary and not based on science.
  • Masking: Fauci testified that he did not recall any supporting evidence for requiring that children wear masks.
  • Travel Restrictions: Fauci unequivocally agreed with every travel restriction issued by the Trump Administration at the height of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus pandemic.
  • Vaccine Mandates: Fauci admitted that vaccine mandates during the 2019 Novel Coronavirus pandemic could increase vaccine hesitancy in the future. He also claimed that these mandates were not sufficiently studied ahead of the pandemic.
  • Laboratory Leak Theory: Fauci acknowledged that the lab leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory.
  • Gain-of-Function Research: Fauci repeatedly played semantics with the definition of “gain-of-function” research in an effort to avoid conceding that the National Institute of Health of the United States funded this dangerous research in China.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Fauci claimed that his staff had no conflicts of interest regarding the origins of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus; yet his senior advisor — David Morens — was “best-friends” with disgraced and soon-to-be debarred Peter Daszak, who was president of EcoHealth Alliance.
  • Grant Approval: Dr. Fauci testified that he signed off on every foreign and domestic grant of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases without reviewing the proposals. He was also unable to confirm if the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has any mechanisms to conduct oversight of the foreign laboratories which they fund.
  • Feigned Ignorance: Fauci claimed greater than one hundred times that he “did not recall” numerous issues and events surrounding the pandemic.

The Committee On Oversight and Accountability of the House of Representatives of the United States held a hearing with Fauci earlier today, Monday, June 3, 2024 and released this document of the testimony and remarks by Fauci.

“Americans were aggressively bullied, shamed and silenced for merely questioning or debating issues such as social distancing, masks, vaccines, or the origins of COVID,” Wenstrup said during the hearing. “And it should not have been the case that Americans were forced to comply with oppressive mandates, when those who chose to illegally cross over our southern border were not.”

Fauci admitted during the hearing that the alleged attempt by David Morens to mislead the National Institute of Health “was wrong and inappropriate and violated policy.” However, he maintained that the orders to stay at home, vaccine mandates, closures of businesses and public institutions, and masks mandates for kids were justified despite admitting that no scientific evidence backed these actions.

Final Boarding Call

Every link in this article is from actual sources — not from media organizations, weblogs, or social media. Read the documents and watch the video; and please let me know your thoughts in the Comments section below.

I personally believe that the contributions of Anthony Fauci with regard to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus pandemic have done more harm than good — and I have repeatedly opined that in numerous articles here at The Gate With Brian Cohen.

One of the reasons why travel has returned with a vengeance during the past couple of years is that most people could not travel to most places during the height of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus pandemic under the advisement of Anthony Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and other authorities.

Travel was only one of myriad factors which were substantially impacted by the decisions of the aforementioned authorities and forced hundreds of millions of people worldwide to radically change their lives as a result — including being quarantined to stay at home for weeks or months at a time and wearing masks which were mostly ineffective. People — including myself — have been increasingly skeptical and decreasingly confident of the information that emanates from those authorities, who have lost a significant amount of their influence.

If you are reading The Gate With Brian Cohen, you likely travel more than the average person — and your travels were likely negatively impacted between 2019 and 2023…

…and if so, you should be furious that in recent months, Fauci shamefully admits that some of his recommendations were not based on science.

Composite photograph ©2020 by Brian Cohen.

  1. Horrible post. I’m a physician, we were overwhelmed, confused, and stunned by this disease that happened so quickly. We adjusted our treatment based on new info and data daily, doing our best every single day to save lives. Fauci was a I.D. Doctor who was known by most physicians in the US. We trusted him, and still do. I will never read this blog again. Maybe stick to airplanes and not world renowned infectious disease doctors.

    1. Not in one single article over the years have I ever once discounted the laborious work that you and other medical professionals did during the 2019 Novel Coronavirus pandemic, Jay Thompson. In fact, I commend it — for what it is worth.

      As for never reading my blog again, farewell. I wish all the best to you.

      1. What a piece of garbage this post was. Dr Fauci spent his life trying to keep America safe and you write this?! I’ll stop reading your propaganda as well.

    2. How many times did the government change the definition of”vaccine” so that the public would buy in on a shot that was largely ineffective?

      From now on everyone will be more wary of the pharmaceutical companies, politicians, and influenced doctors that pushed potential side effects on people.

  2. It was something seeing ignorant politicians bashing Fauci yesterday. The same that proposed people injecting bleach among other stuff. The mental gymnastics to link this guy with some nefarious activities is amusing.
    Nobody liked Covid but pretending he did more harm than good it’s a huge leap. I’m glad there wasn’t a Trump sycophant in his role otherwise the shitshow would have been one for the ages.

    1. The bleach thing was beyond ridiculous, Peteco — as were a number of other things during the pandemic. It was as close to dystopian as I have ever seen in real life.

      I based this article on what Fauci himself said — not what some Republican or Democrat or conspiracy theorist surmised…

      1. You based this article on an incredibly biased “take away” article, published by an equally biased subcommittee. Than you did your best to make your own post even worse. You should feel ashamed. The fact that you can even read something like “The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation forced on Americans by federal health officials was arbitrary and not based on science. ” and not spend the moment of consideration necessary to realize what pure BS it is. Further, the fact that you’re posting such incorrect, inflammatory content, without bothering to spend a second seeing what Dr. Fauci actually said is more pathetic than anything. If you actually cared about the truth you would have spent a moment researching what actually occurred, and any clarifications thereof, such at this one:

        “Fauci sought to clarify on Monday that the 6-foot guidance came from the CDC and was based on droplet research, telling lawmakers: “It had little to do with me since I didn’t make the recommendation and my saying ‘there was no science behind it’ meant there was no clinical trial behind that.”

        Though asked if social distancing requirements and other public health measures to reduce transmission saves lives, Fauci said “definitely.”

        Shockingly, it seems like there was science behind it. I know, right?

        1. Frankly, Craig, I believe that the overreaction to the pandemic was ultimately harmful to humanity. The number of deaths in either direction is far from the only harm that counts; and the ways that the deaths were counted were suspect at best. Many lives were ruined because of the decisions by authorities during the pandemic; and I am not solely referring to deaths.

          I also do not agree with simply going along with the science — not that there is only one kind of science. Science is meant to be questioned. That is how we learn from science and advance as a species…

          …so tell me: when — not if — another major pandemic occurs, are there any changes that you would like to see in response…

          …or do you prefer to repeat the same procedures over again?

          This is supposed to be about discussing the findings of a subcommittee — which, by the way, a video was included with Fauci’s own words. If the members of that subcommittee are biased to the point of lying to the public, then they should be voted out. Let’s have a discussion about that and other things that went wrong during the pandemic so that we can learn from our mistakes for the next time…

          …but I do not believe that Anthony Fauci is a hero who is completely innocent and can do no wrong. Based on his testimony, even he does not believe that.

          I do not feel ashamed at all. Rather, I am quite disappointed that people would rather shut me up than debate and engage in a discussion. If my opinion does not fit the narrative, then let’s just shut me down.

          That is not how a free society works, in my opinion. I never delete comments that disagree with my point of view or whose sole purpose is to hop on some bandwagon and insult me with cheap shots — because I believe that all points of view should be heard…

  3. Another travel blogger pretending to know more than health care professionals. Stick to travel blogging.

    1. I do not need a doctorate degree to write an article that has links to bonafide original sources, Matt

      …and no, I am not a Republican.

  4. Brian Cohen seems like a nice guy but I respectfully disagree with him. That’s what’s wrong with the photo.

    Brian writes “Social Distancing: The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation forced on citizens of the United States by federal health officials was arbitrary and not based on science.”

    Not true. 6 feet was not arbitrary. It IS based on science but Fauci meant that it is NOT based on a randomized clinical trial. When the pandemic was new, there was not 2 or 3 years to do a randomized clinical trial.

    6 feet was based on airborne droplets can drop after a distance. It makes sense. You want to kiss an infected Covid patient or stand next to the patient or stand far away?

        1. …which reflects what was reported at the interviews and hearing of members of the House of Representatives, derek — as well as what Fauci actually said.

          1. It does not reflect what Fauci actually said. That is what is wrong with this article. Craig, above, summarized it much better.

            Too many people don’t like masks or shots so they convince themselves that full exposure is better. There is no doubt that people were dying like flies. They died from Covid, plain and simple. I know at least 2 people who died of Covid and 2 people with terrible long Covid.

            I rather go with N95 masks and vaccination even if those methods are not 100% effective. However, those methods protect me much more so than you. If you don’t wear a mask, you can kill someone but that person will probably not be me.

            1. I have absolutely no issue or problem with anyone who wants or needs to wear masks which are effective, derek. If you believe that those masks do protect your health, then by all means please continue to wear them.

              I do have an issue with people telling me that I must wear a mask regardless of the status of my health; and I do not believe that masks are for everybody.

              I am sorry to learn of the people who you know that died from the 2019 Novel Coronavirus and are suffering from it…

  5. When your headline is a complete lie when you actual understood what he says why bother with the rest of the article. Stick to travel . . . you’re out of your depth on science

    1. The headline accurately reflects the content in the article, David.

      As for science: I will write about it whenever I please — especially when travel is affected by it.

        1. I at least use my real name when I write something, “BrianInCoherent” — but you keep hiding behind your fake name.

          Perhaps you do not clearly understand any of it; but no one will ever know…

  6. Brian Cohen, stick to things that you know something about, not cherry-picking a few comments from a few news stories that support your strident and uninformed point of view. Millions of people died from the novel coronavirus and millions more would have died, without Fauci and others stepping up and taking decisive action. Some of the rules were overkill and others should have been pulled back sooner. Schools suffered because society put a premium on saving the lives of elders. I disagreed with that, or at least the way that those things were balanced.
    But to suggest that Fauci made it up because there was not bedrock science for every detail of every protective measure is ridiculous. Masking and social distancing saved countless lives, full stop. The initial reaction helped in flattening of the curve so that our health care system did not completely collapse. I know nurses who came home every night for months and just cried because of what they were seeing in the hospitals. The science is not on your side and attacking people because they get in the way of your beliefs, that happen to be self serving, is feeble. Thank goodness we didn’t have people like you (and Matthew Klint and Gary Leff) running the show when the pandemic hit and people were literally dying all around us.
    Stick with telling us about the Holiday Inn that you stayed in on your road trip last year….

    1. Tell you what, JohnnyBoy: I challenge you to find a link to one single news story in this article.

      I’ll be waiting…

      …and I did not suggest that Fauci made anything up. If you read the article, you would know that the information was from what Fauci himself admitted to members of Congress…

    1. I need a third one, bigbirdwithsilverwings.

      It’s the least you can do if you are going to engage in meaningless banter…

      …and it must be in Yiddish, like the other two…

  7. Wow… never opening another one of your articles ever again. The fact that you would even consider writing this horsesh*t tells me everything I need to know about you. Go and vote for the big orange felon or better yet, the antivax conspiracy theorist with half a brain left. Good riddance.

    1. Brain washed commenters so confused after sunlight is shown on the shadow of lies they’ve been sold.

    2. Well, then, Trump4Prison2024, case closed, right?

      Based on your comment, I do not believe you have ever opened any of my articles in the past.

      Happy trails to you.

  8. Your article is sadly a microcosm of the biggest and most dangerous pandemic the world has ever faced: lazy, ill-informed, headline-skimming, narcissists with loud voices baselessly refuting experts, scholars and public servants that have dedicated their lives building upon empirical and foundational knowledge, either for reasons of greed (like you) or superiority complexes (also like you).

    Ignorance and bombast have never been so intertwined and prevalent as they are right now, and sadly voices like yours Brian are just part of the growing choir in this age of dis-enlightenment.

    You sir, and the thousands of other peddlers of misinformation (intentional or otherwise) with a social platform, who incessantly drown out credible, reliable and steadfast sources of truth and science, will be the most difficult pandemic for mankind to recover from.

    1. I appreciate the accolades, Akuma; but my weblog hardly has the capability to “incessantly drown out credible, reliable and steadfast sources of truth and science”.

      I am simply presenting a different point of view; and I do not believe that those sources are 100 percent steadfast, credible, and reliable…

      1. If you don’t believe these sources are steadfast, credible and reliable – why are you giving them oxygen? These links you shared are extremely biased (from the conservative whackos who are mugging for these exact kind of headlines) and bent on providing a very slanted point of view. I tried to post some links to the official transcript and to the other side, but the spam protector wouldn’t permit. I sent them to you directly via your web submission.

        1. I received what you sent to me, JP; and I intend to review the links.

          Despite the beliefs of many of the people who commented, this article was by no means a definitive conclusion. I believe it should be discussed from all points of views, which is why I “gave them oxygen”…

          …but rather than have a discussion of the topic at hand, many of the people who commented would rather simply shut down the discussion. THAT is also where the problem lies as much as the hard line conservatives, in my opinion.

          Thank you for sending me those links. I appreciate it.

          1. Thank you for reviewing, they’re links to the full transcript of the interview.

            Totally fair to have an after action review, we should look back and see what we can do to prevent this from being as bad as it was the next time (for everyone’s memory, this happened in the early 20th century too). But without the hyperbole and crazy conspiracy theories. Sure 6 feet was a guestimate, and it was always that, folks who didn’t know that then, I question (especially since air travel was still happening and people seated next to each other, let’s be realistic here). It was not a malicious attempt to keep people apart – it was to hopefully limit the spread in the best ways we knew how in a short period of time when scientific study wasn’t available. And no question that masking and vaccines saved lives – millions. Of course there is a small subset of people who cannot vaccinate, there are programs/support for that too.

            So much of this can be addressed in a rational and thoughtful discussion, rather than the bombast of partisan politics or personal destruction. Let’s believe in science – as well as the good faith efforts of our scientists and leaders to try to keep us safe/healthy. Did 6 feet apart really hurt anyone? Really? Again thanks.

            1. …but if staying six feet apart helped, should we not continue doing so to prevent the spread of other diseases and ailments as well?

              The problem is money and convenience in that case. Airplanes, hotel properties, stadiums, movie theaters, and other venues of public access were not built to adhere to people staying six feet apart — and if they were, they would hold significantly fewer people as a result. That is one reason why those venues were closed or severely restricted during the pandemic.

              I think striking a reasonable balance should be discussed, JP. We have to better learn how to keep people safe without infringing on freedoms and conveniences which were abruptly revoked — temporarily, thankfully — during the pandemic.

              We need to take the lessons that were learned during this pandemic and create a plan so that we are better prepared for the next pandemic — as well as do everything possible to prevent another deadly pandemic from occurring in the future…

              …and yes: I would like to have that thoughtful discussion. Sometimes that means taking what we do not believe and gathering useful information from that, as we can all learn from each other while agreeing to disagree on some parts of the issues. As I said, I do not write articles as steadfast conclusions — which is why I rarely ever moderate the comments section of any article which I write.

              I want to read and hear what is on the minds of readers…

  9. Excellent piece. I will continue to read your articles. Its truly stunning how sheepish some people got with those in assumed authority. Its up to the individual to do their own research and decide what is best for them. Fauci will not go to prison, although he deserves along with numerous other federal employees and politicians for what they did to the public. Keep up the good work. Almost every “conspiracy theory” regarding Covid has been shown to be true. I do hope those years are behind us, and that the majority of the population learns to take leaders’ opinions at face value.

  10. Brian, this is a concise and excellent summary of Mr Fauci testimony.

    As he was the highest paid bureaucrat, NIH employees made over $710 in Big Pharma royalties.

    The collusion and coverups between the NiH and Big Tech and select media outlets continue to play out. All of this impacted travel and travelers.

    We came out of Covid only to have government and corporate DEI and ESG programs as the next harmful viruses.

    1. Thank you for stating this article for what it is, Chris@Oak: a summary of the testimony of Anthony Fauci.

      One would think from many of the comments that have been posted here that I simply conjured fictional information, am a conspiracy theorist, am a follower of Donald Trump, and am a danger to society — none of which is at all true.

      I am simply reporting on the testimony. If people really believe that the congressional subcommittee is so biased that they got everything wrong, then we have far more substantial problems and issues — to which you alluded with government after the pandemic — that need to be resolved.

      To allow conclusions of “science” to simply go unchecked is far more dangerous than questioning it, in my opinion — for a plethora of reasons.

      One of the first things that discredited Fauci in my eyes was when he attended a Major League Baseball game at a stadium during the height of the pandemic and threw out the first pitch while everyone else was ordered to stay home, as I reported towards the end of this article:

      As for people who feel that this topic is too political, I actually agree — but travel was so severely impacted negatively by not only the 2019 Novel Coronavirus but also the decisions that were implemented afterwards that simply ignoring it was not an option for me…

      1. You posted a summary from the Republican majority – if you had wanted to do this justice, you would have shared the Democratic report which was also released and debunks a lot of the junk here – or even the full transcript. The Republicans cherry picked pieces of quotes and bits to try to damage Dr. Fauci, a renowned scientist who has served R & D presidents for decades. Is he perfect? Far from it, but the Republicans lean into the conspiracy theories and you have given it oxygen. Yes, unfortunately our political system is badly broken, and this committee’s work is a great example of it. I’ve lived in DC for 27 years and seen the degradation where people are able to articulate “alternate facts” – that’s a problem. I’m all for learning from our experiences and mistakes, which is what science is about – but the committee majority is peddling mostly junk instead of getting to the bottom of the issues. You should do some more reading, rather than parroting a partisan press release.

        1. Fair enough, JP. You give some very good points.

          I will look into what you sent to me.

          Again, thank you.

  11. There is a huge difference between
    -these (rules/guidelines/recommendations) were just made up (presumably with nafarious intentions). vs. there was no good scientific hypothesis or a practical ways to test it,so a recommendation was made to hopefully help us survive a crisis.

    As a practicing physician and scientist, I am painfully aware of the fact that there we live in a world where we often lack the best scientific answers to even the simplest of the problems. What we are tasked to do, as scientists and physicians, is to advise the public of what we think are best solutions ESPECIALLY when there is not a clear, 100% tested, scientifically proven solutions to these problems.

    I think some of the comments made during this congressional inquiry, as well as some of the comments in reaction to them, were unfortunate result of most of the general public who does not understand the utility and limitation of science and more importantly, how science should work.

    I’m afraid Brian Cohen either does not appreciate this, or just trying to be “convroversial.”

    1. I do appreciate what you wrote and actually agree with it, Naoyuki. If I wanted to be controversial simply for the sake of controversy, I would write many more controversial articles…

      …so as a practicing physician and scientist, what are your thoughts on how to handle the next pandemic? How do we avoid the mistakes that occurred during the 2019 Novel Coronavirus pandemic? Realizing that there is not one solution that fits all scenarios, what best practices do you believe should be implemented as a template of sorts for the next time?

      Now you have me searching for where I misspelled the word controversial as “convroversial”…

      1. I’ll bite on how to handle the next one. Don’t. Let the next one run rampant so there is a base case that even the dullards of the world (those that survive) won’t want to repeat. It’s not like actually explaining things to them makes a difference anyway. Expediting the next plague will help with climate change too. Rip the bandaid off. Herman Cain a few spare billion times over and people will quit questioning science. It’s for the greater good. Future generations will appreciate the sacrifice after the smell goes away.

        Now, Brian, I’m going to look for that boardingarea block button. You earned it.

        1. I am honored that I earned the block button, Babblespeak.

          Just to reiterate: you want for me to read what you have to say; but you do not want to read about my thoughts. Got it. I still will not delete your comment.

          Happy travels to you.

      2. Sorry, I actually misspelled the word controversial in my post.

        Anyways, I still think that, it is inaccurate to say that Dr. Fauci and his people “just made something up” and these “made-up rules” are “not based on science.” I don’t think those congressmen who asked the question they asked and those who read the answers can make this conclusion.

        One example: Dr. Fauci was asked was 6 ft social distancing based on a scientific study. Dr. Fauci, being a real scientist, answered it based on the fact that there has not been any study to determine if there is an optimal distance of separation between people to minimize the spread of COVID-19, and a study like that would not have been (and still not) possible to do properly. There was a study (not probably the best study, but that’s all there was) that suggested 6 ft separation might minimize the spread of respiratory illness that are NOT aerosolized (in the early days of the pandemic, we did not even know whether the virus survived in aerosol…it apparently does…we now know.). But this study did not say that 6 ft is either necessary/sufficient, or if 3 ft is as good as 6 or 7 is bettter than 6. So, Dr. Fauci’s best response without saying what I just typed is that “we sort of decided.”. Could he have elaborated the answer a bit…maybe. But I wasn’t there, so I can’t be sure.

        Anyways, what US CDC and other government should do now are many:

        1) survey and manage the spread of KNOWN infectious threats (e. g. influenza, COVID, measles, TB, and even maybe small pox) and reconsider if the current vaccination recommendations are in fact reasonable. US stopped a vaccination program for TB and smallpox much sooner than other countries, and there are a few well-regarded infectious disease experts that the decision was made prematurely. It’s a long story, but US has always messed up by stopping a vaccination program prematurely. Also, it is beyond belief that US has a higher per capita influeza deaths than many other developed nations…and the lowest immunization rates. This needs to be fixed. One of the mistakes US CDC made is to say, few years ago (and they backtracked form this) that flu shots are just for people “at risk.”. Flu shots are not as effective if most of the population receives it (you can, if you want, look this up in medical literature…this is the more scientific definition of herd immunity.)
        2). US CDC and their international equivalents need to continue monitoring respiratory illnesses by randomly testing a small sample of population and actually subtyping them/reporting the incidence. Without this kind of a surveillance program, we will be caught flat-footed with our pants down again like in 2020.
        3) We need more funding in public health…not just for a division to look out for emerging infectious threats (a division, from what I know, was not well funded in 2019, and was only temporarily better funded until we declared “victory” against COVID…do we see a pattern here?? We need to be finding new potential threats, instead of just reacting (more like flailing) to it. The purpose of public health infrastructure is to manage and hopefully prevent public health disasters, almost to the point the public does not even know we need public health infrastructure. Right now, our public health system in constantly in the reactive “putting out the fire” mode, and that needs to stop. They need enough resources and respect from our citizens to be on the forefront of disease prevention.

  12. Hey Brian,

    I had no idea how triggered the Fauci-funded Wuhan lab (built and managed by the Chinese Communist Party’s, Peoples Liberation Army) basement bots and workers were so quick to attack you and the truth.

    Likewise, I wonder how many NIH employees were on the attack to support the coverup?

    Then again, the Covid hysteria left long-term mental damage as evident from many of the defensive posts. Hypocrisy regarding his actions and statements versus scientific accuracy continues as evident from his admissions (guilt) during the House hearing.

    You can’t argue with stupid.
    Fauci (Dr Death) is viewed as a God-like figure; only to be martyred following his death.

    Your points (well supported) in the above article clearly have everything to do with travel: past; current and future.

    Thank you, Brian.

  13. I appreciate the blog post Brian, it’s inspiring seeing someone take risks and tell the truth. It’s a shame to see so many people stuck in and embracing an era of deceit, fear-mongering, and control.

  14. Actually Fauci did follow $cience. Or Science. Or LIEnce. Whatever. Science can be made to say anything. It can be twisted. With enough advertising, jargon, or whatever.

    Early “science” (19th century) is different then the “science” of the last 75 years or so. Longer perhaps…100 years.

    Lots of bots or trolls who would never otherwise read this blog in the comments?

    The days of “science” are quickly coming to an end (ARMageddon…and “science” plays a prominent role) ….I like the word re-search-ers. “Scientists” as a whole are ignorant & blind about many things – whether corrupted by money or not. Too specialized most have become. Too blind many have become. All – of course not. Just “as a whole.”

    the days of en-TITLE-men-t for “science” are over…coming to a close….darkness before light.

    Has “science” done “good” — of course. It has also done monumental “bads.” Many of which are the cause behind problems which are then solved by “good science.” Chasing our tail we are.

    One thing leads to another.

    Fraudulent vaccine science is just one tip of a many pronged fork.

    Go to LEARN THE RISK – dot – org to learn about how fraudulent ALL VACCINES are.


    Documentary – VAXXED.

    for COVID – go to Odysee (Was censored by Youtube)…and look for channel – COVID VAX INFO.

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

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

You have Successfully Subscribed!