Wednesday 1st of December 2021

polishing fauci on the mickey mouse channel...

faucifauci

National Geographic’s ‘Fauci’ documentary is self-serving agitprop made to feed the Fauci fetish of establishment liberals...

The film is an unabashed ode to the blessed Anthony Fauci, patron saint of ‘The Science’, and narcissist-in-chief at the National Institute of Health.

 

‘Fauci’, the creatively titled new National Geographic documentary airing on Disney+, sets out under a decidedly deceptive guise of impartiality to tell the truth about America’s favorite foremost scientist, Dr. Anthony Fauci. 

 

BY Michael McCaffrey

 

Over the last year and a half, as the coronavirus has ravaged the US and marched across the globe, Dr. Fauci, whom the film describes as “a world-renowned infectious disease specialist and longest-serving public health leader in Washington, DC,” has become a beatified cultural icon to some and a lightning rod of controversy to others.

I consider myself agnostic on Dr. Fauci, but admit that I’ve never understood the media and public veneration of him. I don’t loathe the guy, but he just always struck me as a blowhard bureaucrat with an ego inversely proportional to his intellect. But what the hell do I know? 

Now, if you worship at the altar of St. Fauci – Patron Saint of ‘The Science’ – then Fauci will certainly satiate your Fauci fetish. But if you even mildly question the actions or intentions of the Brooklyn-born scientist/sage, then this documentary is definitely not for you. 

The film seems like a slick, one-hour-forty-five-minute campaign commercial meant to solidify the base rather than reach the indecisive. It boasts a plethora of personal interest anecdotes, as well as montages of family time and even shots of a sexy Fauci in the family pool in a Speedo (no, I’m not kidding). Then there’s the requisite conjured tears to indicate Fauci’s heartfelt humanity, and moments of him cursing to reveal how down-to-earth he is, plus a healthy serving of pious-filled Fauci faux humility. Oh, and there’s also the cavalcade of establishment endorsements from the likes of Bill Gates, George W. Bush, and Bono. 

But if you were hoping for an actual investigation into Dr. Fauci, you’ve come to the wrong documentary, as filmmakers John Hoffman and Janet Tobias seem deathly allergic to actual journalism.

Looking for questions regarding gain of function research, or a feet-to-the-fire moment over the venerated Fauci’s falsities and flip-flops regarding Covid and masks? Or answers to questions like… if the disease is so deadly, why is the southern border still so porous, potentially allowing in infected illegal immigrants? Or if the lockdown was instituted in order to avoid overwhelming ICU units and hospitals, why weren’t more ICU units built and hospital capabilities expanded over the last year and a half? Or if the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission of the disease but only reduces the severity of the illness, then why should anyone care about the unvaccinated, since they are only putting themselves at risk? 

You’ll have to look elsewhere, because ‘Fauci’ doesn’t just not have answers to those questions, it never even considers asking them. 

The whole documentary feels like a bad job interview, where the interviewer asks, “What are your biggest weaknesses?” and the candidate replies, “I work too hard, care too much, and am too dedicated to helping people.”

 

An unprecedented portrait of one of America’s most vital public servants. FAUCI, a Documentary from @NatGeo, is streaming October 6 only on #DisneyPlus#FauciDocpic.twitter.com/M9rOmSl3RQ

— Disney+ (@disneyplus) October 4, 2021

 

Of course, this is a sentimental, softball cinematic venture, so there’s no pushback amongst the prodigious amount of pattycake. 

Even when the film does go through the motions of pretending to be impartial, it lets its bias overwhelm it. 

For instance, Fauci’s arrogant bungling of the AIDS crisis in the 80s is transformed into the narrative of a noble public health worker bridging divides, bringing people together, and bravely standing up against homophobia. 

Fauci’s mishandling of the AIDS epidemic in Africa is also shown in a similar light, but instead of Fauci fighting homophobia, he’s fighting racism. 

The filmmakers’ use of Fauci’s alleged fight against homophobia and racism in these cases is meant to suffocate any liberal questions over Fauci’s record and solidify support among the movie’s ideological base.

They also use Trump as a convenient foil, once again to signal their and Fauci’s liberal bona fides. A red-faced Trump comes in for some very heavy criticism in the documentary – for example, when asked what his first impressions of Trump were, Fauci derisively responds, “Yikes!”

Fauci paints himself as a paragon of truth and Trump as an arrogant buffoon, but the good doctor’s own, sometimes fatal flaws never make a blip on the radar screen of ‘Fauci’. 

For example, from the very beginning of his career all those decades ago, Fauci’s narcissism is readily apparent. He clearly adores being in front of cameras and at the center of attention. This narcissism directly feeds his blind spot – arrogance, most notably in regards to the AIDS crisis and his failure to tell the truth regarding Covid to the American people. This arrogance has cost countless lives. 

It’s Fauci’s lack of humility and inability to admit mistakes that has done so much damage to the credibility of the medical establishment in the US.

If Fauci were consistent and truthful about what he’s done and hasn’t done, and where he’s been wrong, it would go a long way towards healing what ails the medical establishment, but self-reflection isn’t Dr. Fauci’s strong suit – self-promotion is, and ‘Fauci’ is proof of that. 

Ultimately, ‘Fauci’ is a painfully pandering paean to its subject, and an unintentional ode to the relentless narcissism that drives him. If, like Fauci, you love Fauci, then you’ll love ‘Fauci’. If you loathe him or are ambivalent, this piece of shameless and brazen agitprop isn’t going to convince you otherwise.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/536784-fauci-documentary-disney-national-geographic/

 

Dr. Anthony Fauci is again facing the scorn of critics, over a new documentary on his public service. At the same time, the White House adviser is trying to walk back “misinterpreted” comments on canceling Christmas.

Those tired of the health official’s seemingly constant presence on television screens will need to brace themselves, as the Disney+ streaming service is debuting the National Geographic movie ‘Fauci’ on Wednesday. 

The company dropped a trailer on Monday in which the adviser was described as “one of America’s most vital public servants,” prompting immediate social media backlash.

The trailer shows cameras following a teary-eyed Fauci, who is at one point described by a family member as “funny” and “weird.” It doesn’t even attempt to hide its admiration for the man, admitting he’s a “target” for criticism by some, but not touching on the gain-of-function researchmask mandate, or other controversies he has evoked. 

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/usa/536572-fauci-disney-doc-covid/

 

See also: doctor batty...

 

Free Julian Assange Now !

 

nazi george...

 

George Monbiot’s Far-Right Projection


In seeking to attack Covid sceptics as modern day Nazis, the veteran eco-warrior endorses ideas taken straight from the fascist hymn sheet.


BY Ian Jenkins

 

 

George Monbiot is shocked.

But what has shocked George is not the rising tide of poverty and starvation in the world or the unprecedented transfer of wealth to a tiny number of oligarchs.

He is not shocked by the practical collapse of the rule of law or by the brutal actions of police officers in nations claiming to be liberal democracies.

It is possible that these things shock him as well, but if so, there is no sign of this in his recent article for the Guardian.

No. Monbiot is shocked by “leftwingers” being “lured” to the “far right” by “conspiracy theories” in the context of resistance to state measures in relation to Covid-19, including opposition to lockdowns, removal of basic civil rights, mass vaccination with experimental mRNA technology and the prospect of vaccine “passes” or even mandatory vaccination.

In employing these terms Monbiot’s article is a distillation of the familiar techniques used to attack dissenting voices on Covid during the past 18 months and for a considerably longer time on other issues such as climate change, Brexit and globalisation.

This form of attack –always in defence of dominant or mainstream narratives and the actions of governments and their corporate “partners” and always expressed in terms of “concern” – employs pejorative terms such as “far right”, “white supremacist” without defining them adequately or at all. 

We are never asked to consider what we understand by the term “far right” or how the label “conspiracy theory” – itself a category with a fascinating back story and history for employment by state powers to attack critics and deflect legitimate questioning – is being used and no attempt is made to define where the line lies between legitimate questions and analysis and more fantastical or “extremist” explanations of events.

A detailed discussion of these terms goes beyond the remit of this response to Monbiot’s article – but it is worth noting that, as would be expected, they are not defined with any clarity by Monbiot.

However, regardless of what he means by these labels, his piece is so fundamentally based on logically fallacies and so scattergun in the way he employs them that it is sufficient to confront his claims on their own lack of coherence.

Monbiot opens his article with an anecdotal warning that acquaintances of his within the “countercultural movements where my sympathies lie” are “dropping like flies” from the deadly plague of Covid.

This opens of the question of how this assertion matches current data and whether Monbiot’s experience matches those of the public at large. 

Whether this perception of sweeping pestilence is borne out by statistics or not, Monbiot states that this is not a general plague, visited randomly on all such acquaintances, but is one only affecting those with “anti-vax” beliefs. 

These are the crazy folk advocating outlandish ideas like the benefits of “natural immunity” (which Monbiot places in scare quotes, presumably in case his readers might think that the human immune system was a real thing) or “denouncing vaccines and refusing to take the precautions that apply to lesser mortals”.

As a result of their sins against “the Science”, regardless of readily available statistics on the inefficacy of these “precautions”, some have been hospitalised Monbiot tells us – though where this is happening and due what underlying or operating causes is unclear. 

It is worth noting at this point that Monbiot is at pains throughout this article to locate himself as part of a “counterculture” or “alternative scene” while devoting the entire piece to repeating mainstream narratives and attacking those who oppose them.

Quite how a Brasenose-educated mainstream journalist (whose previous “activism” earned him a visiting fellowship at Oxford’s Green College at the behest of a former UK ambassador to the UN) qualifies as a figure on the “alternative scene” is a question that could quite legitimately be asked.

Not content to bemoan that his “countercultural” acquaintances are putting their own lives at risk – Monbiot then accuses them of “actively threatening the lives of others”.

This shifts these non-complying leftists from a state of recklessness regarding their own health and into the realm of criminal intent. 

This is a technique that anyone who has been questioning the mainstream Covid narrative will be familiar with – having spent 18 months being accused of wanting to kill grannies and murder the vulnerable: even in the face of mounting evidence that it is the state that has been engaged in the culling of these groups and which has certainly been responsible for their immiseration. 

The thought process for this imputation of homicidal intent runs like this: masks, lockdowns and vaccines prevent transmission, transmission equals disease and disease equals death.

There is, of course, ample scientific evidence to question each stage of this chain of causation [see here], but Monbiot merely asserts each causal step as unassailable truth sufficient to impute murderous intent to all who fail to comply with the edicts of the biosecurity state.

It could be said in response that it would be possible to lay similar accusation of “threatening the lives of others” against those, like Monbiot himself, who advance the ideology of “net zero” – which would likely result in innumerable deaths from starvation and exposure to cold – but that would be to adopt the tactics of one’s opponent and as Marcus Aurelius put it – “the best revenge is not to be like your enemy”.

Having attributed murderous intent on those holding “anti-vax beliefs” Monbiot now casts his net wider to bemoan the passage of “conspiracy theories travelling smoothly from right to left”, including the claims of “white supremacists”, which he states the misguided children of the left are repeating without knowing their origin.

Monbiot does not trouble himself to identify the nature of these white supremacist claims before moving swiftly on to decry the tragic situation in which:

hippies who once sought to build communities [are] sharing the memes of extreme individualism […] spreading QAnon lies and muttering about a conspiracy against Donald Trump 

And bemoan that: 

the old boundaries have broken down, and the most unlikely people have become susceptible to rightwing extremism”.

There is no attempt to define what is meant by “rightwing extremism” at this point, with Monbiot finding it sufficient to present anecdotal evidence of muttering QAnon hippies – a group I must confess to have never encountered in the ranks of those opposing the Covid agenda, where the QAnon psyop is more likely to be mocked than embraced. 

The reader is left none the wiser as to what “extreme individualism” means either. Maybe these “hippies” are inventing their own personal languages or choosing to live as hermits? 

But despite the absence of any concrete examples that might act as a warning to the unwary, Monbiot is still concerned that this is a sign of something going “badly wrong in parts of the alternative scene”.

In fact, Monbiot is merely employing the fallacy of composition – the logical fallacy so beloved of many on the modern so-called “left”, in which an entire, highly diverse, group of people advancing versions of a particular idea can be represented by the most extreme individuals also advancing that idea. 

Presumably what we are to believe here is that if a Qanon placard, hastily scrawled in crayon by some fringe nutter, is sighted at a protest or if some misguided basement-dweller comments on a Facebook thread then all attending the protest or commenting on the thread are of one mind with these outliers.

Such shoddy thinking has been the mainstay of those employing agents provocateur to discredit movements and campaigns in the past.

It is at this point – perhaps inevitably given the general adherence to Godwin’s Law amongst his milieu – that Monbiot, in an attempt to tie the ideas of these misguided counter-culturalists to the “far-right”, embarks on a rather woolly, cherry-picking and historically inaccurate identification of an “overlap” between “new age” and “far-right” ideas – specifically with Nazi ideology.

There has long been an overlap between certain new age and far-right ideas. The Nazis embraced astrology, pagan festivals, organic farming, forest conservation, ecological education and nature worship.

Monbiot draws attention to the Nazis’ embrace of “pagan festivals, organic farming, forest conservation, ecological education and nature worship”. But then seemingly not quite sure where he is going with this line of thought, and perhaps perceiving the possibility that as a “green” activist himself he is in danger of associating himself with Nazi ideology, he quickly regroups and states that the Nazis also… 

promoted homeopathy and “natural healing”, and tended to resist vaccination.

At this point, Monbiot at least has the decency to point out that just because someone believes in natural medicine and ecology, they are not necessarily a Nazi, which is very good of him and is no doubt a comfort to many of his readers who would identify themselves as being part of the Green movement.

However, it is what Monbiot fails to say about the Nazis that is most telling.

After all, at the Nuremberg Trials, it was not homeopathic practitioners who stood trial for crimes against humanity, it was the allopathic doctors who had carried out medical experiments on the inmates of concentration camps.

And the Nuremberg Code did not set out prohibitions against “natural healing”, but rather against the administration of experimental pharmaceutical products to individuals without their informed consent.

Monbiot also fails to address the Nazi belief in population reduction as central to their views of ecology – especially the targeted removal of those deemed to be inferior and whose presence within the borders of the Third Reich was routinely represented as that of vectors of infection, an unclean influence endangering the health of the Good Germans.

It would not be difficult to find echoes of this Malthusian and eugenicist philosophy today – but Monbiot fails to do so.

It is quite a feat to take the example of the centralised totalitarian state of the Third Reich, obsessed as it was with racial purity, racial “hygiene” and conformity through the process of Gleichschaltung (coordination of all arms of the state around central narratives), and associate it with those who have concerns about matters such as individual rights, the Rule of Law and constitutionality.

Is Monbiot unaware that Nazi ideology was diametrically opposed to these values?

Monbiot also points to a process by which European fascists sought to reinvent themselves in the 1960s and 70s by entering the ecological movement to promote ideas such as ethnic separatism or indigenous autonomy. Though he again fails to explain where, and by whom, these ideas are being raised in the current situation.

Monbiot frames the anti-vaccine movement as: 

a highly effective channel for the penetration of far-right ideas into leftwing countercultures”. 

He then goes on to provide possibly the most bizarre non-example of this that could be imagined – even in a piece as poorly constructed and logically fragile as this – citing the invitation of “anti-vaxxer”, and well-known liberal, Robert F. Kennedy Jnr to the Trump Whitehouse as his example. 

For several years, anti-vax has straddled the green left and the far right. Trump flirted with it, at one point inviting the anti-vaxxer Robert F Kennedy Jr to chair a “commission on vaccination safety and scientific integrity”.

One is left wondering at this point whether Monbiot even knows who RFK Jnr is – surely he does – and how on earth he thought this example would be the best one to present to a Guardianista audience (who still see Trump as the personification of right-wing evil), as evidence of right-wing “anti-vaxxers” influencing the left.

Monbiot’s article now dissolves into an ill-defined attack on ‘conspiracy theories’, which he claims are bolstered by Facebook directing vaccine hesitant people towards “far-right conspiracy” groups.

None of these alleged right-wing groups are named or their views described, with Monbiot being content, to:

  • a) make a link, without evidence, between “wellness” movements and antisemitism
  • b) mock the idea of bodily sovereignty (without defining or arguing this as a legal and/or ethical concept) and
  • c) make a vague derogatory reference to beliefs in a “shadowy cabal … trying to deprive us of autonomy”.

Here Monbiot blurs the concept of some form of biological purity with the legal idea of bodily sovereignty, a piece of linguistic and conceptual legerdemain that he employs again later in his conclusion.

To be fair, in his talk of “shadowy cabals” Monbiot doesn’t mention pan-dimensional lizards or the Illuminati – but he may have just run out space to include these. 

He is also not clear on where there leads people criticising high-profile globalist organisations such as the World Economic Forum – who far from being “shadowy” publish all of their plans on a glossy website and upload talks and panel discussions from their glitzy annual meetings at Davos. 

Of the censorship of legitimate opinion on Facebook, which will be far more familiar to most than being steered to a neo-Nazi group, Monbiot makes no mention.

Monbiot then surrenders any pretence at argument and reminds the reader that they “should never discount the role of sheer bloody idiocy” amongst critics of the biosecurity state and brings up the “Pureblood” meme.

There’s a temptation to overthink this, and we should never discount the role of sheer bloody idiocy. Some anti-vaxxers are now calling themselves “purebloods”, a term that should send a chill through anyone even vaguely acquainted with 20th-century history.

If you are unfamiliar with this fringe social media phenomena, it is one in which the unvaccinated borrow a term from Harry Potter to distinguish themselves from those who have received an mRNA injection. This is, without doubt, a distasteful and counterproductive meme – though its origin is difficult to establish – and provides an open goal for Monbiot (and others) to link those opposing vaccine mandates with the racial pseudoscience of the Nazis.

Ironically here Monbiot states that one cannot expect people this stupid to “detect the echo of the Nuremberg laws”, while being completely blind himself to the other striking contemporary echoes of these discriminatory laws. 

It is clear that the current parallels with the Nuremberg Laws do not proceed from those using the “Pureblood” label, who do not seem in any way interested in discriminating against the vaccinated or in excluding them from normal participation in society or from accessing basic services.

In addition, though quick to raise the spectre of the Nuremberg Laws, it is worth observing that Monbiot appears have no interest whatsoever in the Nuremberg Code.

It is in the next section of his article that Monbiot comes closest to touching on something approaching truth, as he describes, without explicitly stating it to be the case, the breakdown in the relevance of a left/right divide experienced by so many over the past 18 months.

I believe this synthesis of left-alternative and rightwing cultures has been accelerated by despondency, confusion and betrayal […] there has been an almost perfect language swap. Parties that once belonged on the left talk about security and stability while those on the right talk of liberation and revolt.

He accurately describes the disillusionment of many who would have considered themselves to be on the ‘left’ as they watched “left-ish” political parties become acquiescent or even supportive of corporate power, while a libertarian right has arisen which rails against excessive corporate control, resulting in what he describes as a “perfect language swap” in which “parties that once belonged on the left talk about security and stability while those on the right talk of liberation and revolt”.

Putting aside the complete lack of evidence for this in the actions and language of the Conservative Party that governs his own country – there is still some truth to what Monbiot says here. In the past 18 months the most unquestioning and aggressive support for Covid policy has been found on the left, a position Monbiot proves as eager to defend as any other member of the “Lockdown Left” – as they have come to be known by many disappointed and outraged people of the left (myself included). 

Monbiot then seeks to utilise necessity, the “tyrants plea” as Milton put it, to override the objections that some on the left may have to the criminal record of Big Pharma or their potential revulsion at the “coercive political control” of the responses to Covid.

Mass vaccination is “needed” and lockdown and other measures are “required to prevent Covid-19 spreading” – though ample data points to none of this being the case.

He then extends this free pass to tyranny to the fight against “climate breakdown” and the “collapse of biodiversity”, which he tells his reader have made “powerful agreements struck by governments” necessary – something which he admits can be hard to swallow for a left, particularly an environmental left, resistant to such power plays and instead focused on the “local and the homespun”.

Doubtless such cottage industry approaches to the environment do exist, but there is also a multi-billion dollar oligarch-funded environmental lobbying and PR industry which promotes the case for heavy-handed and society-changing ‘climate action’, and which has brought to the attention of the world such pre-fabricated prophets of doom as Greta Thunberg and funded astroturf movements such as Extinction Rebellion.

Notably Monbiot makes no mention of this whatsoever.

Feeling that he has made his case – though in fact no case has been made at all – Monbiot now arrives at his solutions, which he finds in the “hippie principle” of “balance”. (Though quite where this principle is expressed and who the particular “hippies” are Monbiot does not trouble himself to relate).

Monbiot is careful not to lose his “left” audience at this point, and emphasises that this “hippie principle” is not the ”compromised, submissive doctrine that calls itself centrism” as this leads to “extreme outcomes” such as the “Iraq war, endless economic growth and ecological disaster”.

Instead, he proposes the “balance between competing values in which true radicalism is to be found”.

Remarkably he locates this “balance” in “reason and warmth, empiricism and empathy, liberty and consideration” having demonstrated scant evidence of any of these values throughout the rest of his article.

Presumably it’s this ‘reason, warmth etc ‘ that leads to outcomes such as curtailment of civil liberties, mandatory vaccination and depopulation through pursuit of utopian goals such as zero carbon.

But it is Monbiot’s penultimate paragraph that contains his most dangerous piece of (un)reasoning. We might seek “simplicity” he regretfully opines, like some modern-day Mrs Merdle, but…

the human body, human society and the natural world are phenomenally complex and cannot be easily understood.”

All things which may be true, but which do not imply that we should not seek to understand them.

The conclusion that Monbiot draws from this is chilling:

Life is messy. Bodily and spiritual sovereignty are illusions.

The consequences of this statement cannot be overstressed. If bodily sovereignty is an illusion, where does the bar exist to the intervention of the state or any other coercive force on the individual?

There would, for instance, be no bar to rape, or to forced abortion, sterilisation or any other surgical or medical intervention on the human body.

After all, where there is no sovereignty there can be no consent.

It is to defend the idea of “bodily sovereignty” that the Nuremberg Code was drafted, and it was the discarding of this fundamental ethical concept that gave license to the experiments of Mengele.

Yet Monbiot does not pursue this idea to its logical conclusion, content to dismiss its potentially horrific consequences with a shallow and unsubstantiated statement: “there is no pure essence; we are all mudbloods”.

Here Monbiot, as he does earlier in his article, possibly wilfully, appears to confuse some biological idea of bodily purity (or absence of contamination), to which he attributes connotations of racial purity, with the legal/human rights notion of bodily sovereignty. What he means by “spiritual purity” is, again, anyone’s guess.

Monbiot concludes with a nakedly hypocritical recipe for “enlightenment” as coming from…

long and determined engagement with other people’s findings and other people’s ideas”.

Having displayed absolutely no interest in engaging in any such activities himself. “Self-realisation” he tells us, “requires constant self-questioning” – though he clearly deals in unchallengeable absolutes – and that

 

 

true freedom emerges from respect for others”.

Ignoring the inverse case that true tyranny comes from demonising, misrepresenting and disrespecting other people and their views, or by lotting together diverse individuals and ideas under ill-deserved labels such as “far-right” or “conspiracy theorist”.

It is hard to overstress how dangerous the ideas in Monbiot’s article are – a fact made worse by their seeming ubiquity in current mainstream publications and by the casual way they are introduced in relation to a range of issues to discredit legitimate questioning of dominant narratives. 

The true danger we face comes not from those on the left being “seduced” by the ideas of the “far right” – a phenomena for which little evidence seems to exist. But rather that anyone would be seduced by the faux-left and superficially “spiritual” and “equitable” concepts offered by Monbiot and others.

Ideas which, when their ill-evidenced assumptions, spurious reasoning and hypocrisy are exposed, potentially light a path to horrendous destinations.

 

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2021/10/07/george-monbiots-far-right-projection/

 

One of the main problem with understanding anything is that we have to accept that politics and religion used to rule the world (Western world). Now religion having died in the bum and having been replaced by sciences, for good reason, POLITICS has taken to sciences to keep us in our little boxes. Now, nearly every articles in science magazines will start by indicating that "this process is little understood", "not enough data has been collected so far", etc and that statistics have a probability element that is elastic. As well many factors in politics are kept hidden from view. See: doctor batty...

 

 

lack of cooperation...

 

Moderna, Racing for Profits, Keeps Covid Vaccine Out of Reach of Poor

 

Some poorer countries are paying more and waiting longer for the company’s vaccine than the wealthy — if they have access at all.

 

Moderna, whose coronavirus vaccine appears to be the world’s best defense against Covid-19, has been supplying its shots almost exclusively to wealthy nations, keeping poorer countries waiting and earning billions in profit.

After developing a breakthrough vaccine with the financial and scientific support of the U.S. government, Moderna has shipped a greater share of its doses to wealthy countries than any other vaccine manufacturer, according to Airfinity, a data firm that tracks vaccine shipments.

About one million doses of Moderna’s vaccine have gone to countries that the World Bank classifies as low income. By contrast, 8.4 million Pfizer doses and about 25 million single-shot Johnson & Johnson doses have gone to those countries.

Of the handful of middle-income countries that have reached deals to buy Moderna’s shots, most have not yet received any doses, and at least three have had to pay more than the United States or European Union did, according to government officials in those countries.

 

Thailand and Colombia are paying a premium. Botswana’s doses are late. Tunisia couldn’t get in touch with Moderna.

Unlike Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca, which have diverse rosters of drugs and other products, Moderna sells only the Covid vaccine. The Massachusetts company’s future hinges on the commercial success of its vaccine.

“They are behaving as if they have absolutely no responsibility beyond maximizing the return on investment,” said Dr. Tom Frieden, a former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Moderna executives have said that they are doing all they can to make as many doses as possible as quickly as possible but that their production capacity remains limited. All of the doses they produce this year are filling existing orders from governments like the European Union.

Even so, the Biden administration has grown increasingly frustrated with Moderna for not making its vaccine more available to poorer countries, two senior administration officials said. The administration has been pressing Moderna executives to increase production at U.S. plants and to license the company’s technology to overseas manufacturers that could make doses for foreign markets.

 

Moderna is now scrambling to defend itself against accusations that it is putting a priority on the rich.

On Friday, after The New York Times sent detailed questions about how few poor countries had been given access to Moderna’s vaccine, the company announced that it was “currently investing” to increase its output so it could deliver one billion doses to poorer countries in 2022. The company also said this past week that it would open a factory in Africa, without specifying when.

Moderna executives have been talking with the Biden administration about selling low-cost doses to the federal government, which would donate them to poorer countries, as Pfizer has agreed to do, the two senior officials said. The negotiations are continuing.

In an interview on Friday, Moderna’s chief executive, Stéphane Bancel, said “it is sad” that his company’s vaccine had not reached more people in poorer countries but that the situation was out of his control.

He said that Moderna tried and failed last year to get governments to kick in money to expand the company’s scant production capacity and that the company decides how much to charge based on factors including how many doses are ordered and how wealthy a country is. (A Moderna spokeswoman disputed Airfinity’s calculation that the company had provided 900,000 doses to low-income countries, but she didn’t provide an alternate figure.)

Nearly a year after Western countries began sprinting to vaccinate their populations, the focus in recent months has shifted to the severe vaccine shortages in many parts of the world. Dozens of poorer countries, mostly in Africa and the Middle East, had vaccinated less than 10 percent of their populations as of Sept. 30.

 

In August, for example, Johnson & Johnson faced rebukes from the director general of the World Health Organization and public health activists after The Times reported that doses of that shot produced in South Africa were being exported to wealthier countries.

 

Biden administration officials are especially frustrated with what they see as Moderna’s lack of cooperation, because the U.S. government has provided the company with critical assistance.

 

READ MORE:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/09/business/moderna-covid-vaccine.html

 

NOTE: THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FUNDED MODERNA'S RESEARCH....

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW ###################

 

fauci contradicted...

NIH Contradicts Fauci, Admits Funding Gain-of-Function Research at Wuhan Lab

 

Molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright on Wednesday posted a letter from the National Institute of Health (NIH) showing that an NIH grant did fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, contrary to what Dr. Anthony Fauci had testified to the Senate.

Fauci testified to Senators at a hearing in May that the NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

 

However, the NIH’s October 20 letter to House Oversight Committee Ranking Member James Comer (R-KY) showed that the NIH grant, which was awarded to EcoHealth Alliance and then sub-awarded to the Wuhan lab, funded a research project during 2018 and 2019 that tested “if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.”

The letter added: “In this limited experiment, laboratory mice infected with the SHC014 WIV1 bat coronavirus became sicker than those infected with the WIV1 bat coronavirus.”

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, “gain-of-function” research is research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.

Ebright tweeted that in the letter, the NIH “corrects untruthful assertions by NIH Director Collins and NIAID Director Fauci that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.”

The NIH received the relevant documents in 2018 and reviewed the documents in 2020 and again in 2021. 

The NIH–specifically, Collins, Fauci, and Tabak–lied to Congress, lied to the press, and lied to the public. Knowingly. Willfully. Brazenly.

— Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) October 20, 2021

 

 

Furthermore, Ebright noted that the NIH’s letter appeared to show that EcoHealth Alliance violated the Terms and Conditions of the NIH grant.

The NIH said “out of an abundance of caution and as an additional layer of oversight, language was included in the terms and conditions of the grant award to EcoHealth that outlined criteria for a secondary review, such as a requirement that the grantee report immediately a one log increase in growth.”

It continued:

These measures would prompt a secondary review to determine whether the research aims should be re-evaluated or new biosafety measures should be enacted.

EcoHealth failed to report this finding right away, as was required by the terms of the grant.

 

The letter pointed out that the coronaviruses studied under the grant were unlikely to have become SARS-CoV-2, now commonly referred to as the “coronavirus” or “COVID-19.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), whose questioning had led to Fauci’s denial that NIH was funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab in May, tweeted: “‘I told you so’ doesn’t even begin to cover it here.”

 

“I told you so” doesn’t even begin to cover it here: https://t.co/9JFn85I24i

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) October 21, 2021

 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who was mocked for suggesting the coronavirus might have escaped from the Wuhan lab, also weighed in on NIH’s letter, tweeting, “Fauci knew. He should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

Fauci knew. 

He should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. https://t.co/GboEpfwSNq

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) October 21, 2021

 

Rep. Mark Meadows, former North Carolina congressman and former President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, tweeted: “To call this a bombshell is an understatement. Dr. Fauci and others claimed under oath the NIH didn’t fund gain of research function in the Wuhan Lab. Now the obvious is confirmed: they did.”

To call this a bombshell is an understatement.

Dr. Fauci and others claimed under oath the NIH didn’t fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Lab. Now the obvious is confirmed: they did. https://t.co/PoUyIJCInu

— Mark Meadows (@MarkMeadows) October 21, 2021

 

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) tweeted: “Evergreen tweet: Fauci lied again.”

Evergreen tweet: Fauci lied again. https://t.co/JU0SuvBREf

— Rep. Dan Bishop (@RepDanBishop) October 21, 2021

 

Dr. Fauci has yet to respond as of this writing.

 

Read more:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/10/20/nih-contradicts-fauci-admits-funding-gain-of-function-research-at-wuhan-lab/

 

Read from top.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ≤≤≤≤≤≤≤≤≤≥≥≥≥•••••