Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, this year rose to national prominence as the leader of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. By the time everything is said and done, he may end up wishing he’d gained less public exposure.
In the October 19, 2020, report1 “Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 Treachery,” Dr. Peter Breggin reveals Fauci’s “chilling ties” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its military.
A second, legal, report2 by Breggin titled “COVID-19 & Public Health Totalitarianism: Untoward Effects on Individuals, Institutions and Society,” was filed in a federal court in Ohio, August 31, 2020, as part of a lawsuit and injunction to put an end to the state’s pandemic measures.
According to Breggin, Fauci “has been the major force” behind research activities that enabled the CCP to manufacture lethal SARS coronaviruses, which in turn led to the release — whether accidental or not — of SARS-CoV-2 from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in Wuhan, China.
Breggin claims Fauci has helped the CCP obtain “valuable U.S. patents,” and that he, in collaboration with the CCP and the World Health Organization, initially suppressed the truth about the origins and dangers of the pandemic, thereby enabling the spread of the virus from China to the rest of the world.
Fauci has, and continues to, shield the CCP and himself, Breggin says, by “denying the origin of SARS-CoV-2” and “delaying and thwarting worldwide attempts to deal rationally with the pandemic.”
Gain-of-Function Research Supported by Fauci
In the executive summary of the report, Breggin documents 15 questionable activities that Fauci has been engaged in, starting with the fact that he funded dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses, both by individual Chinese researchers and the WIV in collaboration with American researchers. This research, Breggin says, allowed the CCP and its military to create their own bioweapons, including SARS-CoV-2.
He points out that the American-Chinese collaboration was initially detailed in a paper written by two Chinese researchers, Botao Xiao (trained at Northwestern University and Harvard Medical School) and Lei Xiao back in February 2020. According to Breggin, the CCP forced them to recant and the paper was withdrawn.
“The stated purpose [of gain-of-function research] is to learn to prevent and treat future outbreaks; but research labs are the most common source of outbreaks from dangerous pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, as well as two earlier accidental escapes by SARS viruses in 2004 from a research facility in Beijing,” Breggin writes.3
As previously reported by Newsweek,4 the NIAID-funded gain-of-function research into bat coronaviruses was conducted in two parts. The first, which began in 2014 and ended in 2019,5 focused on “understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence.” Initial findings6 were published in Nature Medicine in 2015.
The program, which had a budget of $3.7 million, was led by Wuhan virologist Shi Zheng-Li and sought to catalogue wild bat coronaviruses. It also involved U.S. scientists such as Ralph Barric from the University of North Carolina and Charles Lieber from Harvard.7
The second phase that began in 2019 included additional surveillance of coronaviruses along with gain-of-function research to investigate how bat coronaviruses might mutate to affect humans. This second phase was run by the EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit research group led by Peter Daszak, an expert on disease ecology. According to Newsweek, the project proposal explained the research to be conducted as follows:8
“’We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.’
In layman’s terms, ‘spillover potential’ refers to the ability of a virus to jump from animals to humans, which requires that the virus be able to attach to receptors in the cells of humans. SARS-CoV-2, for instance, is adept at binding to the ACE2 receptor in human lungs and other organs.
According to Richard Ebright, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers University, the project description refers to experiments that would enhance the ability of bat coronavirus to infect human cells and laboratory animals using techniques of genetic engineering. In the wake of the pandemic, that is a noteworthy detail.”
Why Did Fauci Continue Gain-of-Function Research?
While President Trump canceled funding for dangerous gain-of-function research on viruses in April 2020 after the Chinese-American collaborations became publicly known, Fauci has since “unleashed a deluge of new funding that will almost certainly” benefit Chinese scientists with CCP ties who are still working in various U.S. universities and other research facilities.
Part of the funding is again directed to the EcoHealth Alliance, which for years has outsourced its research projects to WIV and other Chinese researchers. That said, recent reports indicate the NIH is now demanding the organization produce records detailing its work with the Wuhan lab before the funding is released.9
Fauci also continued outsourcing gain-of-function research to the WIV back in 2014, after then-President Obama ordered a stop to such research. At the time, he also continued to fund collaborations between U.S. and WIV researchers, led by Vineet Menachery, Ph.D., at the University of North Carolina.
“In order to outsource dangerous viral research from the U.S. to China during the Obama moratorium, Fauci prematurely approved the Wuhan Institute as a highest level containment facility (known as BSL-4) capable of safely working with lethal viruses,” Breggin writes.10
“He did this while knowing the Institute had a very poor safety record and while also knowing that all such facilities in China are overseen by the military as part of its biowarfare program. Thus, Fauci created two grave worldwide threats, the accidental release of a deadly coronavirus and/or its use as a military weapon.”
Interestingly, while the original moratorium on gain-of-function research was a direct order by the President, when the moratorium was lifted at the end of 2017, it was done so by the National Institutes of Health and the NIAID.
Fauci also defended and promoted gain-of-function research on bird flu viruses a decade ago, saying such research was worth the risk because it allows scientists to prepare for pandemics.11 However, as noted by Breggin, this kind of research does not appear to have improved governments’ pandemic responses one whit.
Downplaying COVID-19 Risks
Next, Breggin points out Fauci’s connections to and support of Director-General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a member of a Marxist-Leninist Ethiopian political party whose corrupt past and terrorist ties have been highlighted ever since his controversial nomination.12,13,14 Incidentally, Tedros has also been accused of covering up cholera outbreaks in Ethiopia.
“Together, they initially minimized the dangers of COVID-19. Fauci and Tedros also delayed worldwide preparations for the pandemic while allowing the Chinese to spread the virus with thousands of international passenger flights,” Breggin writes, adding:
“Fauci publicly undermined the President’s criticism of Director-General Tedros and China. Instead, Fauci reassured the world that Tedros was a trustworthy and ‘outstanding’ man — implying that Tedros’s connections in China were similarly reliable and could be trusted.”
Fauci’s Globalist Ties
Interestingly, Fauci recently published a paper in which he again dismisses the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was created in and released from the WIV, arguing instead for a natural mutation.
“By persistently and unequivocally claiming that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from nature untouched by lab manipulations, Fauci continues to protect himself and China, and their relationship, to the endangerment of America and the rest of the world,” Breggin writes.
“Fauci holds himself out as the ultimate source of objective scientific information and science-based conclusions. In reality, he works with and empowers globalist pharmaceutical firms and globalist organizations such as WHO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation … These globalists gained power and influence as their policies and practices, including the shutdowns, continue to worsen conditions throughout the world.”
The globalist, technocratic agenda also shines through Fauci’s call for a political agenda that protects the population from pathogens by limiting or eliminating “aggressive” and manmade interventions into nature. Fauci’s paper, published in the journal Cell in September 2020, reads in part:15
“The COVID-19 pandemic is yet another reminder … that in a human-dominated world, in which our human activities represent aggressive, damaging, and unbalanced interactions with nature, we will increasingly provoke new disease emergences.
We remain at risk for the foreseeable future. COVID-19 is among the most vivid wake-up calls in over a century. It should force us to begin to think in earnest and collectively about living in more thoughtful and creative harmony with nature …”
Indeed, this language is straight out of the technocratic handbook, now rebranded as “the Great Reset.” As noted by Breggin:
“Fauci’s utopian scheme, which overlaps with the Green New Deal, would permanently suppress and disrupt the activities and lives of the 7.8 billion people on Earth in the vain hope of reducing future pandemics.
Thus the American official most responsible for the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in a Chinese lab instead blames its origins on human interventions into the environment and nature, thereby completely exonerating himself while holding humanity responsible.
Simultaneously, he is using the pretext of protecting us from viruses to impose a radical totalitarian agenda upon humanity. Indeed, the largest, most aggressive, and most dangerous human interventions into nature must include Fauci-funded gain-of-function research in which viruses are taken out of nature and engineered into pathogens.”
Fauci Continues to Hype COVID-19 Risks
In the main body of the report (Page 7 onward), Breggin goes on to detail Fauci’s role in the media fearmongering that has allowed pandemic measures to stretch from an initial call for a two-week lockdown to eight months and counting. “Most people have very unrealistic fears about the risk of dying from COVID-19,” Breggin notes, and “This is due in part to the CDC and to Dr. Anthony Fauci who inflate the risk of COVID-19 deaths.”
According to data16 released by the CDC August 26, 2020, only 6% of the total COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death on the death certificate. The remaining 94% had an average of 2.6 health conditions that contributed to their deaths.
“Most people who die while being positive for SARS-CoV-2 are near to or past their average longevity. In addition to being old, the great majority are already ill with heart disease, cancer, or some other chronic illnesses that may in fact have caused them to die.
But even using the CDC’s biased data, the risk of death for most people is too small to require them to sacrifice the quality of their lives as the government demands under the threat of catching COVID-19,” Breggin writes.
COVID-19 Is Less Lethal Than the Flu for Most
According to a September 2, 2020, article17 in Annals of Internal Medicine, the infection fatality ratio has been overestimated due to the fact that many who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 remain asymptomatic, which makes it difficult to estimate the true infection rate.
The researchers found that, when excluding those residing in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities, the infection fatality rate for the average person is as follows:
- Overall (all ages) — 0.26%
- People younger than 40 — 0.01%
- People aged 60 or older — 1.71%
The estimated infection fatality rate for seasonal influenza listed in this paper is 0.8%. Other sources put it a little higher. In either case, this means that if you’re under the age of 60, your chance of dying from the flu is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19.
Breggin cites CDC data, noting that the CDC is using inflated numbers, but even at that, the risk of death for people under the age of 70 is lower than that of the flu. According to CDC estimates, the infection fatality ratios are as follows:18
- 0-19 years — 0.003% (3 in 100,000)
- 20-49 years — 0.02%
- 50-69 years — 0.5%
- 70+ years — 5%
As noted by Breggin, the risk to children and youths is exceedingly small, “Yet Dr. Fauci and other public health officials continue to act as if there is a grave risk of exposing children and young adults to SARS-CoV-2, when there is not,” Breggin writes.
Breggin’s 55-page report19 is well worth reading in its entirety. It contains far more details than I’ve been able to provide in this overview, and is fully referenced.
Fauci Continues to Dismiss Hydroxychloroquine
Breggin’s legal report,20 “COVID-19 & Public Health Totalitarianism: Untoward Effects on Individuals, Institutions and Society,” is also worth reading. It addresses the totalitarian threat posed by the global response to the pandemic, and details the psychological operations behind the fearmongering and the underhanded methods used to discredit hydroxychloroquine, among other things.
Included is an open letter to Fauci about his dismissal of hydroxychloroquine, signed by Drs. George C. Fareed, Michael M. Jacobs and Donald C. Pompan, which reads, in part:21
“Dear Dr. Fauci:
You were placed into the most high-profile role regarding America’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Americans have relied on your medical expertise concerning the wearing of masks, resuming employment, returning to school, and of course medical treatment.
You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions … This is unusual in the medical profession in which doctors’ opinions are challenged by other physicians in the form of exchanges between doctors at hospitals, medical conferences, as well as debate in medical journals.
You render your opinions unchallenged, without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree with you. It is incontestable that the public is best served when opinions and policy are based on the prevailing evidence and science, and able to withstand the scrutiny of medical professionals.
As experience accrued in treating COVID-19 infections, physicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as an outpatient, within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, with a ‘cocktail’ consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.
Dr. Harvey Risch, the renowned Yale epidemiologist, published an article in May 2020 in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled ‘Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis’ …
Dr. Risch is an expert at evaluating research data and study designs, publishing over 300 articles. Dr. Risch’s assessment is that there is unequivocal evidence for the early and safe use of the ‘HCQ cocktail’ …
Yet, you continue to reject the use of hydroxychloroquine, except in a hospital setting in the form of clinical trials, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting its use. Hydroxychloroquine, despite 65 years of use for malaria, and over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with a well-established safety profile, has been deemed by you and the FDA as unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections.
Your opinions have influenced the thinking of physicians and their patients, medical boards, state and federal agencies, pharmacists, hospitals, and just about everyone involved in medical decision making.
Indeed, your opinions impacted the health of Americans, and many aspects of our day-to-day lives including employment and school. Those of us who prescribe hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin/doxycycline believe fervently that early outpatient use would save tens of thousands of lives and enable our country to dramatically alter the response to COVID-19.
We advocate for an approach that will reduce fear and allow Americans to get their lives back. We hope that our questions compel you to reconsider your current approach to COVID-19 infection.”
Fauci — ‘An Extraordinarily Destructive Force’
In Breggin’s estimation, Fauci “has been and continues to be an extraordinarily destructive force in the world.” Not only did he play a role in China’s ability to create SARS-CoV-2 and other potential biological weapons, he’s also covering up its origin, and initially tried to downplay the threat of the novel virus.
To top it off, “he became the go-to scientist and management czar for the very pandemic that he helped to create, enormously increasing his power and influence, and the wealth of his institute and his global collaborators, including Bill Gates and the international pharmaceutical industry,” Breggin writes, adding, in conclusion:
“In his rise to power, Fauci has done a great deal of additional damage … for example, by suppressing the most effective, safest, and least expensive medication treatment (hydroxychloroquine in varied combinations), while manipulating his clinical research to promote an ineffective, dangerous, and highly expensive drug (remdesivir).
Fauci has also been supporting inflated COVID-19 case counts and reported deaths from the CDC, then using the inflated estimates to justify oppressive public health measures that have no precedent and little or no scientific basis, but add to his influence and power and to the wealth of his globalist associates …
It is time to fire Fauci, to investigate this entire disaster, and to consider what needs to be done to protect the US and the world from future lab-generated pandemic disasters, whether accidental or intentional.”