BOMBSHELL: NIH knew that grants to researchers were dangerous, but didn’t monitor them

The Office of the Inspector General dropped a new report about the relationship between the National Institutes of Health, the EcoHealth Alliance, and the facilities that received grants from the organization.

The contents do not reflect well on either the NIH or the EcoHealth Alliance. They were playing with fire, knew it, and failed to ensure that safety was front and center when messing with microbes.

The report is entitled quite sexily: THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH AND ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE DID NOT EFFECTIVELY MONITOR AWARDS AND SUBAWARDS, RESULTING IN MISSED OPPORTUNITIES TO OVERSEE RESEARCH AND OTHER DEFICIENCIES.

Catchy title, as you would expect from the Inspector General’s office. They have a flair for the dramatic.

Well, the findings themselves are dramatic. As explained by Hannah Cox of The White Coat Waste Project, the NIH at the very least dropped a very important ball. And perhaps, given Dr. Fauci’s fondness for gain-of-function research, intentionally so. We may never know that one way or another.

Keep reading

ARPA-H: The Nosy Love Child of DARPA and the NIH

On March 15, 2022, President Biden signed a law allowing for the creation and funding of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The agency received $1 billion for fiscal year 2022.

ARPA-H’s stated mission is  to“accelerate better health outcomes for everyone by supporting the development of high-impact solutions to society’s most challenging health problems.”  So, the federal government is tossing another billion into the black hole that is the American health care system.  Okay.

We’re already spending a fortune on healthcare.

Let’s think about this for a minute.  The U.S. already spends far more per capita than any other nation in the world.  We spend an average of $11,495 per person, per year.  Most other First World countries hover between $5000 and $6000.  (source)

Health care in the U.S. represented 17.7% of the economy as of 2018, and has been projected to increase to 19.7% in 2028.  That means that more than 1 in 6 dollars spent in the U.S. is being spent on healthcare.

So, is this paying off?  Are Americans the healthiest people in the world?

No.  We’re sick and have been getting sicker.  Our life expectancy dropped again last year, to 76.4 years, which is the lowest since the 1990s.  Meanwhile people in dozens of other countries can expect to live into their 80s on average, American life expectancy just continues to drop. I don’t think we’re getting what we pay for.

Keep reading

Don’t Even Go There

A policy of deliberate ignorance has corrupted top scientific institutions in the West. It’s been an open secret for years that prestigious journals will often reject submissions that offend prevailing political orthodoxies—especially if they involve controversial aspects of human biology and behavior—no matter how scientifically sound the work might be. The leading journal Nature Human Behaviour recently made this practice official in an editorial effectively announcing that it will not publish studies that show the wrong kind of differences between human groups.

American geneticists now face an even more drastic form of censorship: exclusion from access to the data necessary to conduct analyses, let alone publish results. Case in point: the National Institutes of Health now withholds access to an important database if it thinks a scientist’s research may wander into forbidden territory. The source at issue, the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), is an exceptional tool, combining genome scans of several million individuals with extensive data about health, education, occupation, and income. It is indispensable for research on how genes and environments combine to affect human traits. No other widely accessible American database comes close in terms of scientific utility.

My colleagues at other universities and I have run into problems involving applications to study the relationships among intelligence, education, and health outcomes. Sometimes, NIH denies access to some of the attributes that I have just mentioned, on the grounds that studying their genetic basis is “stigmatizing.” Sometimes, it demands updates about ongoing research, with the implied threat that it could withdraw usage if it doesn’t receive satisfactory answers. In some cases, NIH has retroactively withdrawn access for research it had previously approved.

Note that none of the studies I am referring to include inquiries into race or sex differences. Apparently, NIH is clamping down on a broad range of attempts to explore the relationship between genetics and intelligence.

What is NIH’s justification? Studies of intelligence do not pose any greater threat to the dignity of their participants than research based on non-genetic factors. With the customary safeguards in place, research activities such as genetically predicting an individual’s academic performance need be no more “stigmatizing” than predicting academic performance based on an individual’s family structure during childhood.

The cost of this censorship is profound. On a practical level, many of the original data-generating studies were set up with the explicit goal of understanding risk factors for various diseases. Since intelligence and education are also risk factors for many of these diseases, denying researchers usage of these data stymies progress on the problems the studies were funded to address. Scientific research should not have to justify itself on those grounds, anyway. Perhaps the most elemental principle of science is that the search for truth is worthwhile, regardless of its practical benefits.

NIH’s responsibility is to protect the safety and privacy of research participants, not to enforce a party line. Indeed, no apparent legal basis exists for these restrictions. NIH enforces hundreds of regulations, but you will search in vain for any grounds on which to ban “stigmatizing” research—whatever that even means.

The restrictions appear to be invented to impede research on certain topics that anonymous bureaucrats with ideological motivations have decided are out of bounds. It’s impossible to know whether senior NIH officials have instigated the restrictions or merely accepted them tacitly. Perhaps they are unaware of the problem; officials far down the bureaucratic ladder are responsible for approving specific applications.

Keep reading

DARPA and NIH-Funded MIT Researchers Create ‘Stickers that Can See Inside the Body’

A team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has created a proof-of-concept for a new “ultrasound sticker,” which is the size of a stamp and is able to provide continuous ultrasound imagining of a person’s internal organs for up to 48 hours. The stickers, which utilize hydrogel in order to function, currently require a wired connection to instruments, but future iterations will function wirelessly.

“Currently, ultrasound imaging requires bulky and specialized equipment available only in hospitals and doctor’s offices,” MIT notes in a press release describing the ultrasound sticker. “But a new design by MIT engineers might make the technology as wearable and accessible as buying Band-Aids at the pharmacy.”

To create their ultrasound sticker the researchers, who outlined their design and prototype in a closed-access paper in Science, paired a “stretchy adhesive layer” with “a rigid array of transducers.” Transducers are electronic devices that convert energy from one form to another—in this instance, by sending sound waves into a human body, which, in turn, echo off internal organs and return back where the echoed signals are translated into visual images.

In order for the ultrasound echoes to work, however, they must travel through a liquid gel, which acts as a conductive medium that creates a bond between the skin and the ultrasound transducer. In this instance, the researchers chose hydrogel as the conductive medium. Hydrogel, for those unfamiliar, is a crosslinked three-dimensional polymeric network structure, which can absorb and retain considerable amounts of water. It’s used to make, for example, the kinds of lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) used to deliver the COVID-19 mRNA “vaccines.”

Keep reading

Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Vaccinate a Human

A box full of genetically modified mosquitoes successfully vaccinated a human against malaria in a trial funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The study involved about 200 hungry mosquitos biting a human subject’s arm. Human participants placed their arms directly over a small box full of the bloodsuckers.

“We use the mosquitoes like they’re 1,000 small flying syringes,” said researcher Dr. Sean Murphy, as reported by NPR.

Three to five “vaccinations” took place over 30-day intervals.

The mosquitoes gave minor versions of malaria that didn’t make people sick, but gave them antibodies. Efficacy from the antibodies lasted a few months.

“Half of the individuals in each vaccine group did not develop detectable P. falciparum infection, and a subset of these individuals was subjected to a second CHMI 6 months later and remained partially protected. These results support further development of genetically attenuated sporozoites as potential malaria vaccines,” researchers concluded.

Carolina Reid was one of twenty-six participants in the study.

“My whole forearm swelled and blistered. My family was laughing, asking like, ‘why are you subjecting yourself to this?’”

Reid enjoyed her experience so much that she says she wants to participate in as many vaccine trials as she can. For this research, each participant received $4,100 as an incentive.

Keep reading

The NIH Just Quietly Admitted Ivermectin Treats COVID

After spending the last 2 years mocking President Trump for promoting Ivermectin (you know, the “horse medicine”) the NIH (National Institutes of Health) has now quietly added it to their approved treatment list.

On the NIH’s official site under the Covid-19 treatment guidelines Ivermectin along withs several other antiviral medicines were reportedly listed as treatment methods to Covid-19.

According to the site itself it says Ivermectin “is an antiparasitic drug that is being evaluated to treat COVID-19”.

Just six months ago major political voices were banned and even ridiculed for ever talking about Ivermectin as a treatment method against COVI and now the NIH is even promoting it.

So much for “trusting” the experts!

Keep reading

DARPA and NIH-Funded ‘Neuroengineers’ Create ‘Wireless Technology to Remotely Activate Specific Brain Circuits’ Using Magnetic Fields and Nanoparticles

A team of scientists led by Rice University “neuroengineers” has created wireless technology to “remotely activate specific brain circuits” on the sub-second timescale. To demonstrate the capability, the neuroengineers used magnetic fields to “activate targeted neurons that controlled the body position of freely moving fruit flies in an enclosure.” The scientists say this research furthers the drive toward the “holy grail of neurotechnologies”: remote control of select neural circuits with magnetic fields.

Incredibly, this use of magnetic fields to control select brain circuits remotely is not new technology. The technique is referred to as “magnetogenetics” and this particular demonstration—outlined in Nature Materials—mainly aims to demonstrate “precise temporal modulation of neural activity” on sub-second timescales as well as “stimulation of different groups of neurons” using varying digital signals.

Previously, the neuroengineers note in their paper, in vivo (in the body) response time of thermal magnetogenetics was on the order of tens of seconds, and was not able to stimulate different groups of neurons.

Keep reading

Rand Paul Demands Answers After NIH Admits Redacting COVID-19 Origins Emails ‘To Prevent Misinformation’

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is demanding answers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), after he says the agency “has repeatedly disregarded its responsibilities under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and the American people’s right to agency records,” according to a Wednesday letter from Paul to NIH Acting Director Lawrence A. Tabak.

“For almost two years, public interest groups and media organizations have been forced to engage in protracted litigation to obtain documents related to NIH’s involvement in COVID-19,” adding “The records NIH has produced have been heavily redacted.”

This suggests NIH is censoring the information it releases to the public about the origins of the pandemic.

Paul cites an article by journalist and former Chuck Grassley investigator Paul D. Thacker, which notes an egregious admission by the NIH in Court that the agency “is withholding portions of emails between employees because they “could be used out of context and serve to amplify the already prevalent misinformation regarding the origins of the coronavirus pandemic.””

In an 18-page declaration to the court, NIH FOIA Officer Gorka Garcia-Malene detailed how the NIH redacts documents in compliance with the law. In the case of Exempt 6 privacy concerns, Garcia-Malene declared:

Exemption 6 mandates the withholding of information that if disclosed “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Exemption 6 was applied here due to the heightened public scrutiny with anything remotely related to COVID-19.

Mr. Garcia-Malene also claimed that information had be redacted “because of the amount of misinformation surrounding the pandemic and its origins.” Seriously, the NIH is now arguing in court that because there is so much misinformation about how the pandemic began, they can’t release facts that might clear up misinformation about how the pandemic began.

The NIH was responding to a case brought by US nonprofit Right to Know, after the NIH deleted coronavirus sequences that Chinese researchers added to the NIH’s Sequence Read Archive. As Thacker notes, “These datasets involved key studies that virologists were using at the time to promote the now discredited theory that the COVID-19 virus may have passed from pangolins to humans.

In the case at hand, the NIH attempted (and succeeded) at sealing the name of a Chinese researcher which had already been made public.

Keep reading

Billions Continue to Be Laundered Through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to China’s Biowarfare Program

The National Institutes of Health funds China’s biowarfare program in ways similar to shell companies laundering money.

It is now an indisputable scientific fact that the COVID-19 virus was created in a laboratory in China and that work was linked to China’s biowarfare program.

There is also an abundance of evidence that funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), specifically Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), contributed to that effort and U.S. government officials and members of the scientific community attempted to cover-up the laboratory origin of the COVID-19 virus and their potential complicity in its creation.

Judicial Watch recently received 1651 pages of records from the NIH revealing an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial funding of bat coronavirus “gain of function” research, experiments that can lead to viruses that are “more transmissible or more virulent than the original organism or those that evade current detection methods and available treatments.”

The records obtained by Judicial Watch include an April 21, 2022 NIH email thread regarding “additional subawardees,” referring to NIH grant R01AI110964 “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” given to Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, a long-time institutional collaborator with Chinese scientists.

Ten facilities are listed, three of which are in China, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Institute of Pathogen Biology in Beijing, and East China Normal University in Shanghai. A fourth, the Duke University-National University of Singapore is an institution closely linked to the Wuhan Institute of Virology

It is important to note, that Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance was the lead investigator on a 2018 research grant application to the U.S. Defense Department’s Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), which, quite literally, reads like a recipe for creating the COVID-19 virus.

Two of the other investigators on that DARPA application were from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Duke University-National University of Singapore facility.

Keep reading

Feds withholding info about deletion of Covid genetic data

The watchdog group Empower Oversight is taking action against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for evading accountability in its legal obligations to disclose “requested” documentation under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

According to Empower Oversight’s court filing, NIH improperly withheld information gathered in response to questions from Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) and Roger Marshall (R-Kansas).

Last year, the Senators asked about the agency’s decision, the request of Chinese researchers, to delete coronavirus genetic sequence information from an NIH database.

NIH has already admitted in the lawsuit that it failed to meet deadlines required by FOIA in responding to Empower Oversight’s request. 

Keep reading