The Jones, who became nationally known for suing the hospital…

Read more

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this weekend secretly deleted all its social media posts and a website that said ivermectin was only for cows and horses. For the first time, the FDA wrote on its .gov website that ivermectin can be safely taken by humans for COVID.

The agency did this as part of a settlement wi…

Read more

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden of , the plaintiff in the case, told me: “The damage the FDA inflicted will linger, but future patients are now protected from one meaningful government intrusion into their medical care.”

The court filing is below for paid subscribers. You first read about this case exclusively in my story in June 2022. The doctors filed the suit for interfering with both their authority to prescribe an approved medication and the doctor-patient relationship.

Subscribe now

The FDA agreed to delete the Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook posts from August 21, 2021 that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” (A screencap of the X/twitter one is above and still online here.)

It will also remove the Twitter post (below) from April 26, 2022 that reads, “Hold your horses, y’all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn’t authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.

Further, the FDA will delete all other social media posts on FDA accounts that link to its website (below) called “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.”

It will “retire” this website (called a consumer update) originally posted on March 5, 2021 and revised on September 7, 2021. The FDA retains the right to post a revised update.

Bowden said she and her co-plaintiffs Dr. Paul E. Marik and Dr. Robert L. Apter decided to drop the lawsuit they got what they wanted.

“After nearly two years and a resounding rebuke by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the FDA has agreed to remove its misleading social media posts and consumer directives regarding ivermectin and Covid-19,” said Bowden.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to district court and wrote in the decision:

FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise. The Doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s Posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to

This is the seventh part of my series about the doctors’ ivermectin lawsuit against the FDA. Catch up and get the original sources here:

1. COVID Doctors sue FDA over Ivermectin: Lawsuit filed (June 2022)

2. Doctors fight FDA in court to use ivermectin for COVID patients: Federal district court hearing (Nov. 2022)

3. FDA Ivermectin Lawsuit Dismissed, COVID Doctors Appeal: Lawsuit dismissed and appealed (Dec. 2022)

4. FDA Says Doctors Can Prescribe Ivermectin for COVID in Federal Court Lawsuit: 5th Circuit Appeal hearing (Aug. 2023)

5. FDA Denies Ivermectin Approved for COVID (Aug. 2023)

6. 'FDA is not a Physician' Federal Appeals Court Sides with Doctors on Ivermectin for COVID-19 (Sept. 2023)

   Share

Read more

In the past, I’ve always ordered my share. I used two of them to know I got the virus last Christmas. But I’m considering not ordering this time as a way to protest methods that could bring back masking and vaccine mandates.

(If you’re new here, I’m not anti-vax. I didn’t get a COVID vaccine because I didn’t think it was necessary, and I was right. I believe strongly that we all have to make our own health and medical decisions and not judge others.)

Promoting Testing

The Biden administration announced it is spending $600 million to have COVID test manufacturers start making more supplies to backfill as it reopened COVIDTests.gov. 

The government says the tests will detect the “currently circulating variants” over the holiday season. The CDC still recommends you do a home test if you have symptoms or have just been exposed to COVID-19.

The AP reported this about the new round of home tests: 

Dawn O’Connell, assistant secretary for preparedness and response at HHS, said that though some portions of the public may be tired of the pandemic and its implications, at home-testing remains a key way to slow the spread of new cases.

“The spread” can’t be stopped. So what else is their rationale?

O’Connell said the new home test focuses on “getting through the holidays and making sure folks can take a test if they’re going to see Grandma for Thanksgiving.” 

This is the same Grandma who was told not to see her grandchildren for a year because of the totally false narrative that kids were spreading COVID. Is she really demanding her supposedly asymptomatic kids get tested to see her?

Docs against testing:

Prominent medical experts who challenge the public health establishment — like Dr. Martin Adel Makary of Johns Hopkins and Dr. Vinay Prasad of UC San Francisco —have expressed concerns.

Dr. posted about this new round of home tests:

The U.S. testing-industrial complex continues at taxpayer expense. The U.S. is an international outlier.

I messaged Dr. Makary and asked if he had written more about the testing issue. He pointed me to his op-ed in The Washington Post from over two years ago in which he wrote that “​​overtesting” is “distorting our perception of the risk of covid-19 and our ability to assess the current public health threat.”

He was ahead of his time.

I started reconsidering having tests at home recently after reading Dr. ‘s Substack about resistance to stop “irrational” public-health decisions.  

“If you are sick— do not test yourself for COVID. (after all, Paxlovid data almost surely doesn’t apply to you),” wrote Dr. Prasad. “It’s time to go dark with all COVID data. If enough people don’t participate, the irrationality will stop.”

Just imagine no more news stories or government warnings about cases increasing. It would certainly calm society’s anxiety and possibly end any just cause for mandates.

Self-report your results

The reopened test kit website also has a link that pushes you to self-report your results to be a good citizen. It says:

Reporting your result — whether negative or positive — helps your nation learn how to use those test results effectively.

How? It doesn’t say. 

When you go to the site to report your home test is positive or negative, you’re then asked what brand test you took. Once you give that information, you give your age, zip code and when you took the test. You can click on it as many times as you want. 

Dr. Houman David Hemmati tweeted about it: 

This is so prone to fraud and selection bias. Literally anyone can anonymously submit a fake test result. I wonder why they're so desperate to unscientifically collect so many "positive" COVID tests.... any thoughts?

Expired FDA tests

These new tests come out on top of the 775 million already sent by mail.  This new round of tests will expire on Dec. 31 but “will include clear instructions on how to verify extended expiration dates.”

That is a rabbit hole you don’t want to go down, so I did it for you. On the current test ordering website, you can click over to this FDA link to know if your current tests have dates past what it says on the box.

I have two kits that expired in May. To write this to you, I tried for about 20 minutes to figure out if mine had extended expiration dates on the FDA site.

You first have to find the exact manufacturer and kit. Then you go through a long list of expiration dates and try to match them to the lot numbers. It is an endless scroll of this hell:

I never found mine. 

Share

Will I order new tests?

I know many of you never tested or stopped testing a long time ago. I am on the fence…

Read more

“It’s been David v Goliath from the start of this pandemic, and it’s finally a small win for David,” Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, one of the plaintiffs, told me Friday. “But there’s still a lot more work to do.” Bowden writes .

Just weeks after hearing the case, the 5th Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal on the grounds that the FDA has sovereign immunity. (The decision is at the bottom for paid subscribers to read.)

The ruling was written by U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett, a Pres. Donald Trump appointee. He pointed to the FDA’s social media posts (below) about ivermectin that made it seem the medication was for farm animals.

The judge wrote:

FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise. The Doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s Posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to. As such, the Doctors can use the APA to assert their ultra vires claims against the Agencies and the Officials.

Even tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond FDA’s statutory authority.

Judge Willett also wrote that the social media messaging “traveled widely across legacy and online media.” He wrote:

Left unmentioned in most of that messaging: ivermectin also comes in a human version. And while the human version of ivermectin is not FDA-approved to treat the coronavirus, some people were using it off-label for that purpose.

Dr. Bowden said that she and her co-plaintiffs Dr. Paul E. Marik and Dr. Robert L. Apter are “thrilled with the decision which recognizes the FDA is not a doctor and does not have the authority to issue medical advice.”

During the hearing before the three-judge panel, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod pressed the FDA’s lawyer hard on whether the agency’s social media posts were “commands.”

Finally, the FDA lawyer conceded, “FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID.”

The doctors filed the suit in June 2022 for interfering with both their authority to prescribe an approved medication and the doctor-patient relationship.

Share

“The court rejected the government’s attempt to assert sovereign immunity and avoid any accountability for its illegal actions, allowing our case to proceed,” Bowden said. “We look forward to continuing the fight.”

Leave a comment

Read more

The FDA launched a publicity blitz this week to try to convince people that ivermectin is not approved and not a “safe or effective” treatment for COVID.

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, one of the doctors suing the FDA, said the campaign shows the agency is “worried” about how the federal appeals court will rule in the case.

Ivermectin approved?

As you read here first, a Justice Department lawyer said in a Fifth Circuit Appeals Court hearing on Aug. 8 that the "FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID.”  

I listened to the whole hearing live and didn’t think that the FDA changed policy. But that one line went viral, which led members of Congress, the media, and the public to believe ivermectin had been approved to treat COVID. The distrust of the FDA is high.

"The FDA is now saying that it’s okay to take ivermectin if you have COVID,” Fox’s Maria Bartiromo said on Aug. 11 about the hearing.  “My COVID was gone in a day when I took ivermectin. Now, three years later, the FDA says, fine, take ivermectin.”

Capitol Hill believes it

Bartiromo was interviewing Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.). He replied that “the FDA sabotaged ivermectin.” He referenced the FDA’s social media from Aug. 2021 (below) and said, “This was supposedly horse medicine — no, this was Noble-prize-winning medication that could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”

Later, Johnson posted on Twitter: "Now the FDA quietly approves ivermectin’s use? What’s going on?"

He wasn’t the only one on Capitol Hill under the impression that the FDA changed its policy. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz) tweeted:

Evidence has shown that Ivermectin was an effective treatment against Covid-19 from the start. The FDA quietly acknowledged the drug's effectiveness with approval last week.

Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wisc) tweeted about it and wrote, “Hmm now the TRUTH comes out.”

FDA panics

After a week, the FDA posted on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram that it had “seen lots of chatter about ivermectin” and that “some” of it “isn’t true.”

It gave these “facts” to explain what its lawyer said in court:

1) Although FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals, it has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19, nor has the agency stated that it is safe or effective for that use.

2) Health care professionals generally may choose to prescribe an approved human drug for an unapproved use when they judge that the unapproved use is medically appropriate for an individual patient.

Dr. Bowden of said the agency’s posts “suggest they are worried about the pending decision of the 5th circuit.”

Misinformation or truth?

The public response to the FDA’s fact-checks was almost entirely negative, as you can see below. The pandemic made people lose confidence that public health agencies tell the truth.

I recently wrote about how to do crisis communications when your reputation is on the line. The FDA has failed to follow any of the best practices (respond immediately, tell the whole truth) since the beginning of the pandemic. Now, it’s too late.

The FDA’s credibility and brand are so tattered that well-informed, public figures think the agency has been lying about COVID treatments and vaccines.

Share

You can also read how I was scapegoated by the FDA in the first year of the pandemic, which gives you insight into its dysfunctional internal workings.

Ivermectin efficacy

Read more

A year after filing a lawsuit, she sat in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday as the government defended its role in medical care. The judges sounded skeptical of the FDA’s defense that it never stopped doctors from prescribing the medication off-label for COVID.

This is the fourth part of the series on this case. Catch up and get the original sources: lawsuit filed (June 2022), federal district court hearing (Nov. 2022) and lawsuit dismissed and appealed (Dec. 2022.)

“When the FDA commanded the public not to take ivermectin—  an incredibly safe medication used by over four billion people—  my job treating COVID patients became incredibly more difficult,” told me after the hearing in New Orleans. 

FDA on defense

Ivermectin is an off-label treatment for COVID. During the pandemic, the FDA posted on social media to “stop” taking it and put up a website telling people not to use it as treatment.

(The FDA may be scrubbing its website now. Details at the end only for paid subscribers.)

Subscribe now

Under federal law, the FDA is not permitted to give medical advice. This was the point the judges pushed hardest when questioning the government lawyer. 

The Justice Department’s lawyer, Ashley Cheung Honold, said the FDA was just giving a warning like opioids are dangerous. Honold said it was necessary after “consumers being hospitalized after self-medicating with Ivermectin intended for horses.”

Pressed by Elrod on what was allowed, Honold said that "FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID.”

Pharmacies and insurance

Dr. Bowden said the FDA’s defense in the untelevised courtroom is not enough to end her lawsuit.

“We need the FDA to make an official announcement that clearly states doctors can prescribe and pharmacies can dispense ivermectin for whatever purpose they wish. That is how the law exists, and FDA is not above the law,” the doctor told me.

She said that without an official FDA statement, the public is still going to have difficulty accessing the drug.

“I continue to have to send prescriptions for ivermectin to special pharmacies that do not take insurance. Patients are paying hundreds of dollars for a very inexpensive medication because pharmacies like Walgreens and CVS are refusing to fill prescriptions for ivermectin.”

“Stop it”

Judge Elrod asked Honold about the tweet (below) and other social media posts that say, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it.”

“Is that a command? ‘Stop it,’” Elrod asked Honold multiple times but did not get a firm response.

Doctors’ authority 

Bowden, Dr.  Paul E. Marik and Dr. Robert L. Apter filed the lawsuit against the FDA in June 2022 for interfering with both their authority to prescribe an approved medication and the doctor-patient relationship.

“Nearly 40 percent of prescriptions in the United States are for off-label use,” the doctors’ lawyer, Jared Kelson of Boyden Gray and Associates, told the court.

“This is and always has been an integral aspect of the practice of medicine that is precisely why the FDA cannot interfere. In fact, Congress has expressly forbidden it.”

Bowden has prescribed ivermectin to many of her 5,500 COVID patients.

“I had to find pharmacies willing to dispense it, fight a hospital unwilling to use it, and reassure sick patients it was safe,” she said. “Countless other doctors faced the same roadblocks. The repercussions on patient care are immeasurable.”

Since Bowden has gone public about prescribing the controversial drug, she has been forced to defend her medical license and resign her privileges at Houston Methodist Hospital. Read her powerful Substack article on the impact of defending herself to the Texas Medical Board. None of the accusations against her are from her patients.

FDA accountability

The government’s position was that the court does not have a role to play in the FDA’s guidance on ivermectin. The judge asked Honold who or what would “correct” the FDA if it was giving out “false information.”

“The FDA is politically accountable, just like all other executive agencies,” replied the DOJ’s lawyer. “And the government has to be able to speak to its constituents by conveying information in this way.”

"But we don't elect the FDA,” the judge said. “So how would it be politically accountable?”

“The public can elect its government officials. And FDA, like other government agencies, have politically accountable heads of the agency who are held accountable by the political process,” said Honold. “It's not the role of the courts to fact-check the FDA’s scientific statements meant to further their mission to protect the public from dangerous uses of drugs.”

Legal battle ahead

While the judges delved into the merits of the case, the hearing will only determine whether the FDA can be sued. The case was dismissed by a lower court in December (my story here) because the government claimed it has sovereign immunity.

The doctors are arguing that the FDA is not immune because it acted outside its statutory authority.

All three judges- Elrod, Edith Brown Clement and Don Willett— were appointed by Republican presidents. You can listen to the 50-minute court audio here

Share

FDA scrubs website?

Read more

Leave a comment

You never got to make that educated health decision at the time because the White House censored accurate information about vaccines, according to the newly disclosed "Facebook Files." The press also pressured Facebook to remove content.

I feel validated because I suspected all this from being censored when I questioned if Pres. Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris wearing masks alone in a car after being “fully vaccinated” meant they could still spread the virus.

Subscribe now

White House Pressures Facebook

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan wrote two sets of tweet threads — which he called the “Facebook Files” — that “prove” aides to Pres. Joe Biden violated First Amendment rights by demanding COVID information be removed or censored from the biggest social media platform for political purposes. 

Congress obtained the internal Facebook emails and memos through a subpoena and only after threatening to hold Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in contempt. One email from a Facebook employee to Zuckerberg said:

We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press to remove more COVID-19 vaccine discouraging content.

Note that the content being removed is “vaccine discouraging”, not misinformation and not false information. That is a clear violation of First Amendment rights.

In another tweet, Jordan wrote, “The Biden administration also wanted Facebook to remove TRUE information as well.” The internal Facebook memo says the Surgeon General wanted accurate information about the side effects of the vaccine removed unless couched in language that they are rare and treatable.

Facebook said that it already removed “content that explicitly directs people not to get the vaccine”, according to its own policies. But the White House wanted any slight vaccine criticism removed, even a meme you can see here.

Vaccine Dissenters Demoted

Jordan pointed to one memo in which Facebook said it “demoted a video posted by Tucker Carlson by 50% in response to the White House’s demands, even though the post didn’t violate any policies.”

The Facebook Files documents start in April 2021, which is also when the company essentially demoted me too. Facebook assigned the Associated Press (AP) to write a fact check about my post questioning if the vaccines were effective. At the time, effectiveness was defined as not getting sick with COVID-19.

Media Fact(less) Checks

The AP’s fact check, which is still online here, was linked to my post with a warning of “missing context.” I wrote on Substack, which protected free speech throughout the pandemic, that the media fact check seemed too coordinated with the White House.

The only fact here from the AP (not sourced, but likely from the White House) is that there were other people in the car. However, this only adds to the government’s failed messaging that getting vaccinated does not mean you are safe from getting COVID nor spreading it. 

Now I know from the Facebook Files that the White House was actively involved in censoring all vaccine information.

Did the White House tell Facebook to add the disclaimer to my post because I took the photo from the official Twitter account? Biden staff involvement would explain how the AP knew that there were other people in the car from a photo taken and released by the White House.

Media Pushes Censorship

Jordan's Judiciary Committee did not release the actual documents, so it's unclear which reporters the Facebook employee was referring to when he told Zuckerberg that “the press” was pressuring them to remove content." I hope those media outlets are outted because it’s not the role of reporters to monitor content it doesn’t like on social media.

On the bigger picture of media reporting about COVID in light of the Facebook Files, be sure to read fantastic take on here about this all-time low in journalism. He writes:

This is total corruption of the news. We’re supposed to be in the business of questioning officials, even if the questions are unpopular. That’s our entire role! If we don’t do that, we serve no purpose, maybe even a negative purpose.

Share

Media Blackout

There has been very little media coverage of the “Facebook Files”, with only a handful of conservative outlets reporting on the issue. Mainstream media outlets…

Read more

I hate conspiracy theories. They make me nervous. So, I do not believe a COVID vaccine caused LeBron James’s 18-year-old son to have a cardiac arrest while playing basketball on Monday.

Leave a comment

However, this case is a turning point as LeBron was publicly skeptical* about the vaccine before he got the jab. I now think it’s worthwhile to consider why so many people believe the shot is the cause of heart failure and death among young, male athletes.

Google Cardiac Arrest

No reputable news outlets covered the theory that LeBron “Bronny” James Jr. was sent to the ICU because of a vaccine “injury.” Nevertheless, “cardiac arrest” related to James was Google’s top trending search of the day (see below) because of the widespread concern about the vaccine’s side effects.

The Chances

Bronny was treated by his college medical staff and then taken to the hospital, where he is now stabilized. He’s lucky to have gotten immediate treatment. Only 10% of people who have a cardiac arrest outside of a hospital survive, according to the American Heart Association. 

While it is rare, the CDC reports that about 2,000 “seemingly healthy” people under age 25 die each year of sudden cardiac arrest.  The Mayo Clinic states that “sudden cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death in young athletes” with estimates of 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 80,000.

That Question

The media covered James and the vaccine only to mock or condemn Elon Musk, the Twitter (“X”) CEO, who raised the issue on Tuesday:

We cannot ascribe everything to the vaccine, but, by the same token, we cannot ascribe nothing. Myocarditis is a known side-effect. The only question is whether it is rare or common.

Musk, who spoke with the curiosity and concern of many people, got these headlines: Elon Musk Uses Bronny James’ Cardiac Arrest to Spread Anti-Vax Conspiracy Theory (“Rolling Stone”) and Elon Musk Immediately Spreads Vax Garbage After Bronny James' Medical Scare (“The Daily Beast.”)  

But the public’s serious interest in the topic was evident in the trending topics on Twitter: Myocarditis, mRNA and Pfizer. 

Vax Side Effects

Myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart muscle, is one cause of cardiac arrest. The CDC says there is a “causal association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (i.e., Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech) and myocarditis and pericarditis.” The government agency says these cases occurred:

most frequently in adolescent and young adult males within 7 days after receiving the second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine; however, cases have also been observed after dose 1 and booster doses.

There’s also evidence that these heart ailments are caused by the virus itself. For example. this Penn State study says your risk of developing myocarditis is seven times higher from just getting infected with the virus than from getting the vaccine.

Damar Hamlin

There have been many examples of young athletes with heart issues in the past few years that have fed the conspiracy theory. The most infamous was NFL player Damar Hamlin who collapsed during a game. Fans watched live as he was given CPR until an ambulance arrived on the field.

Now recovered, Hamlin tweeted about Bronny on Tuesday. “Prayers to Bronny & the James family as well. here for you guys just like you have been for me my entire process.”

Hamlin has said his cardiac arrest was caused by “commotio cordis” which the American Heart Association calls “a rare event caused by a blow to the chest.”

Share

*LeBron was Vax Skeptic

I didn’t get a COVID vaccine, so it’s easier for me to ignore conspiracy theories and not worry about side effects. That’s not the case with Bronny’s father. LeBron, who refused to get vaccinated during the 2021 big push by the NBA, is

Read more

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden is defending her medical license for prescribing ivermectin at a Texas hospital, even though the patient’s family praises her care.

“I'm super proud of Dr. Bowden …

Read more

Just like that, it’s all over.

Subscribe now

Disclosure: I was the FDA’s Assistant Commissioner for Media Affairs in the Trump administration and promoted the vaccines in that role.

FDA De-Authorizes

On Tuesday, the FDA announced in a statement that the monovalent Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines are no longer authorized for use in the United States. Those are the “primary series” that 69% of the U.S. completed, according to the CDC.

This is the FDA’s new guidance for the remaining 31% of us:

Most unvaccinated individuals may receive a single dose of a bivalent vaccine, rather than multiple doses of the original monovalent mRNA vaccines. 

The bivalent vaccine is the Omicron booster, which are mRNA shots made by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech.

Bivalent Boosters

Other than the unvaccinated, the FDA authorized the second bivalent booster only for people over 65 years old.

Notice the guidance for unvaccinated is that they “may” — not should— get the Omicron booster. That’s likely because the boosters have been mostly a fail.

I just checked the CDC website, and currently, just 17% of the population has gotten one of the bivalent ones. However, 42% of people over 65 years old have been boosted.

This shows that young and healthy people finally realized that their own immune system works better to get over COVID than any boost in antibodies from the shots.

Natural Immunity

Peter Marks, who is in charge of the vaccines at the FDA, basically admitted that...

Read more

I am sorry to share this terrible news. Texas Sheriff Deputy Jason Jones, who became nationally known when he sued for ivermectin while hospitalized for COVID, is dying. He is now in hospice.

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden said her former patient’s road to recover…

Read more

The black man in Anocostica, which is the poorest neighborhood in D.C., gives a point-by-point answer for his personal decision not to get vaccinated. I cued …

Read more

All of a sudden, none of this is a “debunked conspiracy theory.”

This was the general consensus of the most likely scientific data on Capitol Hill Wednesday after three years of government and mainstream media insisting that the lab leak and gain of function were lies from right-wing nutjobs

Wuhan Lab Leak

As I wrote you two years ago, Pres. Donald Trump’s CDC Director, Dr. Robert Redfield, was professionally canceled and personally called a racist after he told CNN that COVID most likely came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Re-read my March 2021 story here:

Emily Posts News

In Defense of Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield on a Wuhan Lab Leak

The Biden Administration, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the liberal media are so determined to appease communist China that they refuse to even acknowledge the very real possibility that COVID-19 came from a government lab. In order to keep the public believing the only way the virus came to be was from a rat-to-human transfer, they have canceled the doctor who ran the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) during the first year of the pandemic…

Read more

5 years ago · 3 likes · 11 comments · Emily Miller

As I wrote back about Redfield giving his expert opinion after leaving the CDC:

The Biden Administration, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the liberal media are so determined to appease communist China that they refuse to even acknowledge the very real possibility that COVID-19 came from a government lab.

In order to keep the public believing the only way the virus came to be was from a rat-to-human transfer, they have canceled the doctor who ran the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) during the first year of the pandemic. 

But the truth has since been set free.

Redfield Unmuzzled

On Wednesday, Redfield was center stage at the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearing (full video here) on investigating the origins of COVID-19.

The doctor told the panel what he has been saying for years — that COVID is most likely the “result of an accidental lab leak than the result of a natural spillover event.”

Redfield told the committee that NIH Director and COVID King Dr. Anthony Fauci refused to let him take part in phone meetings on the virus origin when he was running the CDC so there would be no counterargument. He said Fauci had him “sidelined.”

Wuhan Lab Exposed

Meanwhile, Redfield was the most qualified to lead the government investigation into COVID-19 origin because he is a virologist with decades of experience working in military and hospital labs.

Here’s what he said about how the Wuhan lab leak was seen by investigators in 2019:

Gain of Function

Subcommittee Chairman Dr. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) asked Redfield if the Wuhan Institute conducted gain-of-function research on a batch of coronaviruses, and Redfield said yes.

Even more alarming, Redfield said directly — see the video in the tweet at the top — that gain of function studies created this COVID pandemic. In layman’s terms, this virus was man-made to spread faster and kill more.

Silencing Redfield was dangerous because it slowed or stopped investigations into the bigger picture. He said this in the hearing:

Understanding the origins of COVID-19 is critical for the future of scientific research, particularly as it affects the ongoing ethical debate around the conduct of gain-of-function research.

Gain-of-function has long been controversial within the scientific community, and, in my opinion, the COVID-19 pandemic presents a case study on the potential dangers of such research.

While many believe that gain-of-function research is critical to get ahead of viruses by developing vaccines, in this case, I believe it had the exact opposite result, unleashing a new virus on the world without any means of stopping it and resulting in the deaths of millions of people.

Share

Lab Leak Coverup

There are countless examples of politicians and powerful media outlets deliberately refusing to consider — much less tell the public — the scientific facts about the manmade lab source of the virus because of their own personal hate of Trump.

Read more

Read more

Read more

Share

Note continued: I experimented …

Read more

Read more

Subscribe now

When I went to the American History Museum to see the new exhibit for my YouTube channel, I was surprised to find Dr. Anthony Fauci’s mask behind glass.

Watch my video …

Read more