Blog

A CIA Senior Official Personally Stopped Analysts From Concluding COVID Came From the Wuhan Lab.

40% off through July 4th because the truth deserves to come out on America’s 250th birthday. Subscribe now.

This is not a theory anymore. It is a documented fact with a paper trail.

When CIA analysts were privately concluding in the earliest days of the pandemic that the furin cleavage site in the COVID virus looked consistent with gain of function modification, a senior official at the CIA’s Weapons and Counterproliferation Mission Center personally intervened to stop them from shifting to a lab leak finding.

Not bureaucratic inertia. Not competing evidence. A person. Making a decision. To stop the conclusion the evidence was pointing toward.

On June 4th 2021 that same CIA center briefed Fauci on classified COVID origins intelligence from the President’s Daily Brief. During that briefing Fauci steered the agency toward consulting scientists who had publicly advocated for a natural origin. The scientists he recommended were the ones who had already staked out the position he needed them to hold.

Meanwhile a pre-pandemic Department of Energy warning to Fauci’s own agency about the risks of the Wuhan Institute of Virology research apparently never reached the analysts tasked with investigating the virus’s origin. The people investigating whether the lab caused the pandemic were never told their own government had already flagged that lab as dangerous before the pandemic started.

Then when a whistleblower filed a formal complaint alleging that classified intelligence contradicted Fauci’s sworn testimony to Congress, the Biden DNI’s office routed it not to an independent inspector general but to HHS Secretary Becerra, Fauci’s own boss, who had already indicated the matter was considered.

The FBI told Congress it had interviewed a key witness before reaching its lab leak conclusion. ODNI’s own records show that interview happened months after the FBI had already made its call. And when finally interviewed the witness said nothing about COVID origins at all.

This is not incompetence. Incompetence is random. This is a pattern running in one direction consistently protecting one man from accountability for five years.

Keep reading

Scientists Find Poison-Resistant Mutant Rats Spreading Across America’s Biggest Cities

Rats and mice in major American cities are developing genetic mutations that make them harder to kill with common poisons, according to new research from Rutgers University.

Scientists examined nearly 300 rodents from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., and found widespread signs of resistance to widely used exterminator chemicals.

Around five out of every six rodents tested carried at least one mutation linked to reduced sensitivity to poison.

More than two-thirds also had additional genetic changes previously tied to resistance against common rodenticides.

The mutations were especially common in house mice, which researchers said appear to be adapting faster than larger brown rats, also known as sewer rats.

“Genetic mutation is not that special in these creatures,” lead researcher Jin-Jia Yu said. “But we found that the house mouse shows a lot of genetic mutations related to rodenticide resistance.”

Keep reading

New Analysis from 2020 Virginia Election Shows Over a Million Duplicate Applications – Matches Near Million Ballot Drop We Uncovered Right After Election

Right after the 2020 election, we reported a similar number of ballots that were dropped in the state in the election.

In 2020, we performed an analysis of the 2020 election results in Virginia.  President Trump was way ahead all day, but then in the evening, the election was called for Joe Biden, with President Trump still in the lead.

Here is what we uncovered and reported:

The Virginia results in the 2020 Election for President gave Joe Biden a 2.4 million vote lead over President Trump’s 2.0 million votes.  What’s odd and needs investigating is how the election ended up this way.

No one seems to be questioning the votes in Virginia, but they should be.  There are multiple reasons why the Virginia results in the 2020 Presidential election should be investigated.

Virginia’s election results started coming in shortly after the polls closed on Election Day.  There were 378 separate entries or feeds in Virginia found in the file obtained and shared around the web from the New York Times since the election.  The NYT data feed shows all the entries from the NYT for the Presidential election at a state by state level. This data does not include county or precinct level data feeds.

One oddity in the file noted immediately is that the results for votes are not in whole integers (e.g. 1, 2, 3…).  All of the entries have fractional amounts.  This makes no sense since ballots do not come in fractions in the US.  Each vote equals one vote.

The first 125 entries reported in the NYT data feed were basically reasonable.  The results varied in percentage of votes between Presidential candidates and appeared to be random with most votes going to President Trump.  Up through this time (11:03 Eastern), President Trump was leading 52% to Biden’s 46%.  At this time 3.3 million of the eventual 4.4 million votes had already been cast or about 75% of the vote was in.   This is when things went off the rails.

Eight entries totaling nearly (800,000) votes were removed from the database during this time.  This makes no sense. Each vote should be added to the vote totals not taken away.

Overall three entries of over 300,000 votes were posted in the data base to Biden’s vote total.  Two entries of over 300,000 votes were taken away.  The same happened to President Trump’s totals but in much smaller amounts.  Overall 851,000 votes were added to Biden’s totals and only 318,000 were awarded to President Trump between 11:14pm (Eastern) on November 3rd and 5:00am November 4th.  This resulted in over half a million more votes net and 73% of the votes going to Biden during this timeframe.

Keep reading

Larry Sanger Said Wikipedia Punishes Dissent. Then It Banned Him.

Larry Sanger spent the spring suggesting that Wikipedia could stand to host a wider range of opinions. The community took the suggestion under advisement, deliberated in the open spirit the site loves to advertise, and then banned him for life.

They took his point, apparently. He had argued the place was an ideological monoculture that punishes dissent and a panel of volunteers settled the question by punishing the dissenter.

Sanger cofounded Wikipedia in 2001 and wrote a good chunk of the neutrality rules still bolted to the wall. This week he collected the harshest sanction the project hands out, an indefinite block, upgraded to a permanent ban after he had the nerve to mention the block on X.

There was no appeal and his founder status bought him nothing.

When the editors closed the discussion that ended his run it wasn’t that they concluded that he broke an explicit rule. They certified that Sanger is “not here to constructively build the encyclopedia.”

That is a ruling about the man, pretending to be a ruling about an act. You can fight a specific charge against you with evidence but you can’t fight a reading of your heart because no evidence on earth disproves a feeling.

The committee decided what was rattling around inside Sanger’s head and what was rattling around inside Sanger’s skull turned out to be bannable.

Anyone with real pull on Wikipedia has an agenda, the admins and the power editors included. Sainthood has never been a documented feature of the volunteer base.

If “not really here to build” becomes grounds for exile, the rule stops catching people who have motives and starts catching people whose motives the room has voted to dislike.

The selective eyesight is sitting right out in the open for all to see. One of the accounts that helped run Sanger off, an editor going by TarnishedPath, had already been barred by Wikipedia’s own administrators from the Israel-Palestine topic area over conduct and still got a say in whether the cofounder was pure of heart.

The watchmen, it turns out, are lightly watched. The same community keeps neat little lists ranking which outlets a citation is permitted to come from.

CNN, The New York Times, and the BBC ride up front in the trusted carriage. Fox News, Newsmax, and The Federalist get seated in the marked-down section. Deciding in advance whose journalism is allowed to count, rather than the accuracy of the report and information itself, is the same reflex as deciding in advance whose intentions are allowed to be good. The site does both and files the whole operation under neutrality.

Sanger, for his part, is not charmed by the courtroom. “There is no due process,” he said to the New York Post.

“People are being blocked—in other words, disciplined—and yet there is no respect for certain expectations that any other serious disciplinary procedure would be held to.”

He compared it to a trial by “faceless mob.”

Ban discussions are meant to stay open at least 72 hours. An administrator blocked him before the clock ran out, thought better of it, reversed, then reinstated the ban as permanent the instant the window closed.

Wikipedia is also not a court and its defenders will tell you, correctly, that it never signed up to be one. The bar here is lower than a courtroom.

Anybody with the power to erase a person from a project he founded owes him more than a snap show of hands on whether he seems like their sort and owes a great deal more than that when the accusation boils down to his heart being in the wrong place.

Keep reading

LEAKED AUDIO: Gunderson Middle School Principal Reacts to O’Keefe Undercover Video Exposing Teacher Pushing LGBTQ on 11-Year-Old Children

The O’Keefe Media Group caught a Las Vegas middle school teacher breaking policies and pushing LGBTQ+ propaganda onto 11-year-old children.

Christopher Segal, an English teacher at Gunderson Middle School was caught on hidden camera admitting he coaches minors on coming out as queer.

The teacher, who goes by “Mx” also admitted to condemning black “MAGA” kids and lashed out at parents for not being supportive of their queer kids.

“I’ve had kids ask me, like, coach them on coming out [as Queer],” Christopher Segal told the undercover OMG journalist.

Segal admitted to breaking the law by calling the kids by their preferred pronouns.

“I break the law [CCSD Policies] and still call kids what they want me to call them,” he said.

“They [Kids] come out [as Queer], and I’m like, “awesome.” They know I’m queer,” Segal said.

Keep reading

Liberals’ 10% tariff on canned vegetables will hurt low-income Canadians: Kris Sims

On this week’s episode of The Gunn Show, Kris Sims of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation discussed the Liberal government’s recent imposition of a 10% tariff on certain imported canned vegetables.

Sims slammed the move as another tax on food that will hit low-income families the hardest, noting canned vegetables are a pantry staple for many Canadians trying to stretch their budgets, especially as grocery prices continue to climb.

The tariff, announced June 19 and effective immediately, applies to imports from most countries but conveniently exempts the United States, Mexico, and several others.

“Canned tomatoes, a big chunk of them come from Italy, because those folks are really good at working with tomatoes,” Sims explained.

“And what’s super upsetting about this is that anyone whose ever pinched a penny knows that canned tomatoes are you’re go-to staple in your pantry if you’re trying to stretch your dollar, if you’re making chili, you’re making spaghetti sauce, food banks just really count on stuff like this,” she continued.

“And [the government] is making it more expensive on purpose,” Sims added.

The tariff was described by the federal government as a provisional safeguard measure that can last up to 200 days while the Canadian International Trade Tribunal completes its inquiry into surging imports. Imports of canned vegetables have risen sharply in recent years, with notable increases from countries like Thailand, Turkey, and Peru.

The government says the tariff is needed to protect Canadian processors facing “immediate challenges,” but critics point out it comes from the same Liberals who repeatedly promised to tackle the cost-of-living crisis.

Keep reading

When Published Research Comes Under Fire: Homeopathy Studies Become Battleground in Debate Over Scientific Retractions

What happens when peer-reviewed research produces findings that challenge prevailing scientific assumptions?

The question has surfaced across medicine for decades, from disputes over vaccine safety and nutrition research to debates over cancer treatment. Increasingly, it has also emerged in one of healthcare’s most polarizing fields: homeopathy.

Supporters argue that homeopathy has been unfairly dismissed despite hundreds of published studies examining its effects.

Critics counter that its core principles conflict with established scientific understanding and that studies reporting positive results often fail to withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny.

Behind the public debate lies a deeper question about scientific studies: When published studies are disputed, where is the line between legitimate correction and efforts to remove findings from the scientific record?

‘Retraction is not an appropriate remedy’

That query sits at the center of two high-profile retractions involving homeopathy researchers Dr. Menachem Oberbaum of Israel and Austrian physician Dr. Michael Frass.

Both helped engineer studies that were peer-reviewed, published in respected medical journals and later withdrawn after challenges to their methodology and conclusions.

Oberbaum led a randomized controlled trial published in the European Journal of Pediatrics that examined health outcomes among children during their first 24 months of life.

The study compared homeopathic and conventional treatment approaches and reported fewer illness episodes, fewer sick days, fewer respiratory illnesses and reduced antibiotic use among children receiving homeopathic care while retaining access to conventional medicine.

The findings suggested measurable benefits from a treatment many scientists regard as biologically implausible.

The journal later retracted the paper, citing concerns that the study lacked blinding and placebo controls, conditions editors said increased the risk of bias.

Oberbaum sharply criticized the decision.

“This retraction is, in our view, an example of an academic process that failed to meet even minimal ethical standards,” he told The Defender.

Co-author Dr. Raj Manchanda, chief medical officer at Nehru Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital in New Delhi, India, argued that the concerns raised against the study should have been addressed through scientific debate rather than retraction. He said the researchers were not informed that a post-publication review process had begun and were given a limited opportunity to respond before the journal withdrew the paper.

Manchanda also disputed the journal’s rationale. He said placebo treatment would have been ethically problematic in children younger than 2 years old and argued that open-label designs are widely accepted when blinding is impractical.

“The methodological issues cited in the retraction were known during peer review,” he said. “Retraction is not an appropriate remedy.”

Keep reading

Politicians Never Spend Their Own Money

The Canadian government has quietly expanded the clothing allowances available to the Governor General, and the timing could not be more tone-deaf. While Canadians struggle with inflation, housing costs, and rising taxes, Ottawa has decided that the person already living in Rideau Hall requires even more taxpayer-funded support for wardrobes and official appearances. The Governor General currently earns a salary of roughly C$378,000 per year, lives in an official residence maintained at public expense, travels at taxpayer expense, receives staff support, security, transportation, and a lengthy list of other publicly funded benefits. Yet somehow that was not enough.

According to the revised guidelines, the annual clothing allowance for the Governor General has increased from C$100,000 to C$130,000. The maximum amount that can be spent on ceremonial attire has also increased substantially, while clothing purchased with public funds remains government property. Think about that for a moment. The average Canadian household is trying to figure out how to pay for groceries, rent, mortgages, insurance, and utility bills while government officials are debating whether C$100,000 a year is enough for clothing. The political class truly lives in a different universe.

What makes this even more absurd is that the Governor General’s office already receives millions of dollars annually to operate. Rideau Hall employs dozens of staff members, maintains extensive grounds, hosts official events, and receives funding for travel and hospitality.

Keep reading

Yale’s Echo Chamber: The Ivy League’s Most Extreme Ideological Imbalance Exposed

A new report from the Buckley Institute lays bare the deep political homogeneity gripping the governing bodies of America’s elite universities. Titled “The Echo Chamber on Top: Governance in the Ivy League,” the analysis reveals a striking disconnect between these institutions and the broader American public they claim to serve.

Across the eight Ivies, registered Democrats dominate governing boards at a roughly 6-to-1 ratio over Republicans (66.5% Democrat vs. 11.2% Republican, with the rest unaffiliated). Political donations tell an even clearer story: trustees funneled at least $85.5 million to Democratic causes compared to just $22.4 million for Republicans. Yet one institution stands out for its purity of progressive thought: Yale University.

Yale’s Corporation—the university’s primary governing body—boasts zero registered Republicans. According to the report, 88.2% of identified trustees are registered Democrats, with the remainder unaffiliated. Its political giving is the most lopsided in the League: roughly a 50-to-1 ratio favoring Democrats ($5.8 million to Democrats vs. $102,000 to Republicans).

This is not mere coincidence but the culmination of a self-reinforcing cycle. Past Buckley research documented an 82.3% Democratic faculty at Yale (just 2.3% Republican) and similar skews in the admissions office and Divinity School. When the people who hire professors, set admissions standards, approve budgets, select presidents, and steer institutional strategy all hail from the same narrow ideological lane, groupthink becomes inevitable. Dissenting perspectives—essential for rigorous inquiry and true intellectual diversity—are simply absent from the room where decisions are made.

Conservatives have long warned that elite higher education has drifted far from its mission of pursuing truth and preparing citizens for a pluralistic society. The result is declining public trust: Gallup shows confidence in colleges plummeting from 57% in 2015 to 36% recently, with 70% of Americans believing higher education is heading in the wrong direction. Yale, with its $40+ billion endowment and sky-high tuition, exemplifies the problem: an insular elite increasingly out of touch with the country that funds and sustains it.

Keep reading

Sen. Rand Paul: Biggest Threat to Validity of an Election ‘Is When You Don’t Vote in Person’

The biggest threat to the validity of an election is “when you don’t vote in person,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) – a cosponsor of the SAVE America Act – said during an interview on Breitbart News Daily.

“I think the biggest threat, really, to the validity of the election is when you don’t vote in person,” Paul said. “When you vote in person, you can show an ID. People identify them. It’s kind of hard to have 500 extra votes if only 500 people showed up, that kind of thing.”

That security is totally absent when individuals are voting by mail, he emphasized.

“When it’s done by mail, you have no idea if these people are living, if they’re real, who filled out the ballot, who signed the ballot. You know, there’s a lot of problems. There’s also the question of whether they really desired to vote or had the energy to vote if someone went to their house 12 times and then finally filled it out for them and held their hand while it got signed or signed it themselves as they harvested the ballots,” the senator said, explaining that he is “probably more concerned about the honesty and integrity of elections by mail-in balloting.”

“And I think one of the things that got lost — and I’m for the Save Act. I’m a co-sponsor of it. I’ll vote for it. I’ve continued to vote for it, but you know how the Democrats took about $60 million, they went into Virginia, they changed the Constitution just to gerrymander things. We should go in with a similar amount into Arizona and change the law there – just in Arizona, if we could, from unsolicited ballots to only solicited ballots,” Paul said.

The Kentucky senator said he would like to get rid of mail-in ballots altogether, but he said many people in the West like them.

Keep reading