TV Host Says She Quit Because She Was Blocked From Questioning Fauci

A host of The Hill’s morning show says she abruptly resigned because she was blocked from taking part in a recent interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser.

Kim Iversen joined The Hill’s “Rising” in 2021. The show is described as a weekday morning program with bipartisan hosts that “breaks the mold of morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before.”

Iversen has repeatedly discussed COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines, the government response to the disease, and other related subjects.

She told supporters in a video on July 29 that she vowed when she joined the show that she would maintain independence and not be censored. The Hill is owned by Nexstar Media Group.

Some of the segments made colleagues uncomfortable, but executives and producers never approached Iversen to shift her tone.

On the evening of July 24, Iversen says, she was told that Fauci’s team asked earlier in the month who the hosts would be when he appeared on the show and that Iversen wasn’t included because the interview was going to take place earlier than she typically reports to work.

Iversen told the producers to go back to Fauci’s team and say Iversen had to be included. If the interview was then canceled, then The Hill could run a segment about the development, she proposed.

While an agreement seemed to be reached, Iversen received a call the next morning from the show’s executive producer.

“They had made the final decision not to approach Fauci’s team but to instead move forward with the interview without me. They wanted me to come on the show, record a couple of segments, and then ask me to leave so they could interview Fauci,” Iversen said.

During the actual interview, Fauci falsely said that he never recommended lockdowns over COVID-19.

Keep reading

COVID reinfection rate with treatment Biden is taking is more than 40% – and not 2% as marketed: Paxlovid is thought to suppress immune response meaning body can’t fight off new infection

Joe Biden has been re-infected with COVID after taking an anti-viral drug that leaves patients running a 40 per cent risk of flare-up of the virus shortly afterwards.

Taking Paxlovid leaves COVID sufferers in danger of testing positive for the virus again very quickly after clearing their initial infection. 

When Paxlovid came to market in December 2021, studies from Pfizer indicated that only 1-2 percent of patients who took the drug tested positive for Covid again shortly after finishing their dosage. 

But other experts say the rapid reinfection rate is closer to 40 per cent, and that Paxlovid can cause this issue by suppressing patients’ immune systems too early, meaning their own bodies are unable to get a handle on COVID.  

Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a prominent cardiologist and professor of medicine and surgery at George Washington University Hospital tweeted: ‘I think this was predictable.’

He continued: ‘The prior data suggesting ‘rebound’ Paxlovid positivity in the low single digits is outdates and with BA.5 is likely 20-40% or even higher.’

In a memo released by the White House, Dr. Kevin O’Connor said that the president will continue to isolate, just like he did when he first tested positive on July 21. 

Dr. O’Connor also said that the president would not be prescribed Paxlovid again. The president’s doctor earlier noted that it was likely that the president was infected with the BA.5 variant. 

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

British Communist Party professor, who supported surveillance methods during Covid, joins the WHO

The World Health Organization (WHO) has a new head of the Technical Advisory Group for Behavioral Insights and Science for Health – and she is Professor Susan Michie.

Michie, director of the Center for Behavior Change at University College London, previously advised her country’s government on Covid, and has spent the past 40 years as a member of UK’s Communist Party.

In her advisory role in the UK, Michie made a name for herself as a staunch advocate of extremely stringent Covid-related restrictions. At some point last year she came up with a radical statement in favor of masks and social distancing mandates continuing “forever.”

Speaking for Channel 5 in June 2021, Michie made the claim that both masks and social distancing are needed as long term measures not only to combat coronavirus, but also other diseases.

Keep reading

Fauci Claims He Never Recommended COVID-19 Lockdowns

White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci claimed Monday that he never recommended “locking anything down” when pressed about what he would do differently regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

“First of all, I didn’t recommend locking anything down,” Fauci replied during an interview published by The Hill’s “Rising” program on Monday, suggesting it had been a recommendation from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“Go back and look at my statements,” he added, “that we need to do everything we can to keep the schools open and safe.”

Although it’s unclear exactly what Fauci meant by lockdowns, in October 2020, Fauci had publicly recommended that former President Donald Trump “shut the whole country down,” although it’s not clear what he meant as presidents don’t have the authority to hand down sweeping lockdowns.

“When it became clear that we had community spread in the country … I recommended to the president that we shut the country down,” he said in an event with students at the College of the Holy Cross in October 2020.

If the United States didn’t “shut down completely the way China did,” then the spread of COVID-19 wouldn’t be stopped, Fauci continued to say at the time. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) since early 2020 has pursued a “zero COVID” strategy that some analysts say is tantamount to economic suicide.

Keep reading

COVID Jabs Impact Both Male and Female Fertility

The first COVID shots rolled out in December 2020, and it didn’t take long before doctors and scientists started warning of possible reproductive effects.

Among them were Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., director of toxicology and molecular biology for Toxicology Support Services LLC, who in April 2021 submitted a public comment1 to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), highlighting the high potential for adverse effects on fertility.

I previously interviewed Lindsay in 2021. That article is not updated with the new information, but the interview (above) is a good primer for the information she shares below. In many ways, she predicted what we are now observing.

She stressed there’s credible evidence that the COVID shots may cross-react with syncytin and reproductive genes in sperm, ova and placenta in ways that might impair reproductive outcomes. “We could potentially be sterilizing an entire generation,” she warned.

Lindsay also pointed out that reports of significant menstrual irregularities and vaginal hemorrhaging in women who received the injections by then already numbered in the thousands, and that this too was a safety signal that should not be ignored.

4 in 10 COVID-Jabbed Women Report Menstrual Irregularities

As it turns out, early reports of menstrual irregularities were not a fluke. More recent investigations have confirmed that, indeed, many women experience menstrual irregularities after the shots. As reported by NBC News in mid-July 2022:2

“An analysis3 published Friday in the journal Science Advances found that 42% of people with regular menstrual cycles said they bled more heavily than usual after vaccination. Meanwhile, 44% reported no change and around 14% reported a lighter period.

Among nonmenstruating people — those post-menopause or who use certain long-term contraceptives, for example — the study suggests many experienced breakthrough or unexpected bleeding after their COVID shots.”

Other categories of people reporting abnormal breakthrough bleeding included 39% of those on gender-affirming hormone treatments, 71% of women on long-acting contraceptives and 66% of postmenopausal women.4

Older women, those who used hormonal contraception, had been pregnant previously, or had diagnoses of endometriosis, fibroids or polycystic ovarian syndrome were more likely to experience heavier bleeding than normal after their shots.

Keep reading

Biden administration officials are subpoenaed over Big Tech censorship collusion

The suspected collusion between Big Tech and Big Government is nothing new, but now the issue is playing out in court: in May, a lawsuit filed at the US District Court for the Western District Court of Louisiana seeks to prove that such inappropriate ties in fact exist.

The plaintiffs are the states of Missouri and Louisiana while President Biden and senior figures from his White House – including Dr. Anthony Fauci – are named as defendants. The allegation is that the collusion to suppress speech happened specifically around topics like Covid and election security, and that this was done with the pretense of fighting “misinformation.”

The legal process is now in the discovery phase and those who must respond to discovery requests and present documents and information relevant to the case are Fauci and the institution he heads, the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and its head, Jen Easterly, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Keep reading

Dr. Deborah Birx: I knew shots would not prevent COVID infection

Defenders of federal officials, including President Biden, who declared one year ago that people who received the COVID-19 vaccines would not contract the disease argue “the science” changes over time.

But the White House coronavirus response coordinator at the time the vaccines were developed and rolled out said in an interview Friday she wasn’t surprised that people who were quadruple vaccinated, including Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci, contracted the disease.

“I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection and I think we overplayed the vaccines,” Birx told the Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto.

Birx, who is promoting a new book in which she confesses she manipulated data and quietly altered CDC guidance without authorization, was responding to the question of what she would say to unvaccinated people who in light of the ineffectiveness of the vaccines in preventing COVID might ask why they should bother getting the shots.

Keep reading

Biden Is Extending The Covid Emergency And Prolonging The War On Doctors

Arecent New York Times/Siena College poll showing 64 percent of Democrats preferring a new standard-bearer in 2024 rocked the White House and the political landscape, but it should not have come as a big surprise. After all, President Joe Biden continues to fall short of the promises that drew many Democrats, including myself, to his candidacy in 2020: his pledge for a new strategy combatting Covid-19. 

Consider the Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision allowing pharmacists to play doctor and prescribe Pfizer’s anti-viral treatment Paxlovid, which Biden himself, having contracted Covid-19, is now taking. The agency claims this is meant to increase access to the medicine, which must be taken as soon as symptoms arise. But the drug’s fact sheet is a tangled web of restrictions that will make it impractical for most pharmacies to take the risk. Why is the FDA encouraging this?

The answer is plain to anyone who has been following the plight of independent doctors during the pandemic. Our public health agencies — heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry and beholden to Biden’s “vaccine first” approach — are committed to diminishing the medical profession and centralizing authority with bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. They have prosecuted a relentless campaign to reduce physicians to cogs in a health care system that is aggressively transforming all medical professionals from providers to prescribers. 

The problems with Paxlovid are no secret. FDA granted Pfizer emergency use authorization for the drug after a single trial with questionable results. The medicine has many contraindications, meaning it can’t be taken by someone who simultaneously would be taking certain anti-depressants, anti-seizure, anti-psychotic, cholesterol, or blood pressure medications. Furthermore, many Americans cannot take Paxlovid, given that nearly half of adults have cardiovascular disease

The risks are plain to see in FDA’s guidance, which recommends referring the patient to a doctor if “sufficient information is not available to assess renal and hepatic function” or “potential drug interactions.” Numerous contraindications are listed, and caution is advised throughout. The burden is on the patient to furnish medical records to prove that he or she doesn’t have any significant kidney or liver disease, drug sensitivities, or other medications that could cause serious adverse events. 

Keep reading