A Dive into NIH FOIA Dumps
They're (still) who we thought they were
(Today’s post is too long for some email programs. Check the webpage or Substack app to make sure you’re getting the full story!)
This weekend I dove into Jimmy Tobias’ latest (or at least latest at the time!) FOIA document dumps. You can find the entire 312-page release here, but I created some “highlights” of the information for this article.
As usual, a whole lot of this information is completely redacted — it seems like a lot of this is suggested wording on public statements, but obviously we don’t know for sure:
I certainly have a couple concerns about the note — mainly that I can’t read it!
The big “story” in the documents involves NIH employee David Resnik, who wanted to publish a report in early 2021 (“How the COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts the
Risk/Benefit Calculus for the Gain of Function Experiments with Pathogens of Pandemic Potential.”)
But Carrie Wolinetz — acting chief of staff for NIH director Francis Collins — had some issues with the paper:
Leaving aside the “official” misinformation about covid evolving naturally, it’s shocking that NIH would block a scientific paper simply because it runs counter the official narrative.
Well, it would have been shocking four years ago. Now, it’s sadly par for the course. (Check out this great Twitter thread highlighting the numerous people who were shot down when trying to investigate the origin of covid. Resnik has been added at the bottom.)
And wouldn’t you know it, the very next day, Resnik acquiesces to the pressure:
Translation: “Never mind, I like my job.”
How are people supposed to ‘follow the science’ when counter-narrative positions never even get to the publishing stage? This goes for puberty blockers and DEI programs as well. If the only “publishable” scientific position is the official one, is it any doubt that “all the scientists agree”?
Note that a similar paper flew right through the apparatus in August 2020 — “Rethinking Gain-of-Function Experiments in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic”. Why would it pass muster when Resnik’s paper didn’t?
“The scientific consensus is the virus emerged as a zoonosis whereby it jump from an animal host, possibly bats or pangolins, to humans.”
Well, now it’s not………..so…….it’s only proper to ask: What else are they hiding from us?
A little later in the report, NIH clarifies that it doesn’t do Gain of Function research according to new Gain of Function rules:
This is the needle-eye that Fauci was trying to thread when he told Rand Paul “You do not know what you're talking about.” Luckily, we have a handy guide so you can see what the process looks in practice:
……………………
My sneaking suspicion is the ‘experts’ knew GoF research was banned so they simply came up with new definitions that would allow them to do whatever they wanted in the first place. Sort of how the covid jabs were marketed as ‘vaccines’ and the definition was changed after the fact.
Not as important — but funnier — is this internal memo about upcoming events and tasks. Dated 2/2/21 — in the heat of the jab rollout — this provides a little insight into what NIH was concerned about at the time:
Maybe this is where they came up with the idea of giving treatment to minorities first? For equality, of course.
A couple weeks later, the NIH knew acquired immunity was a real thing.
This data was promptly shoved down the memory hole as the focus shifted to getting jabs in arms — we can’t have people making their own decisions about how to proceed! What if they choose wrong!??!?!?
Even the most mundane of emails provide some insight into how things worked at NIH:
“I went ahead and requested written questions to ensure Dr. Lauer is prepared and there are no surprises.”
And what would happen if the reporter refused or asked the wrong questions?
Is this journalism or Public Relations?
I ran into another spit-take when the NIH crew was discussing ‘fact-checking’ an upcoming book by Washington Post reporters Yasmeen Abutaleb and Damian Paletta. In this section, the authors are discussing a press conference in which Trump was discussing plasma therapy:
The pretend-shock that “experts” would DARE to discuss RELATIVE risk reduction instead of ABSOLUTE risk reduction falls a little bit flat because the “experts” used relative risk reduction in basically ALL of their “findings”.
For example, the IFR for unvaxxed people in my age group was 0.3. (Clustered around the already-sick, but let’s ignore that.) After the shots, that number fell to 0.05. One way to express this (and the favored way the “experts” DID express this) was to say “The unvaccinated have 6x the risk as the vaccinated”.
Relative risk.
They never once (to my knowledge, but I can be wrong) came out and said “This reduces your risk by 0.25%”. (Absolute risk)
Yet I’m supposed to believe these guys had their hair on fire because Trump spoke of relative risk reduction and not absolute risk reduction?
And I guess we’ll end right back where we started: Text behind black boxes.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya can’t take over the NIH soon enough. The American people deserve to know exactly what the “experts” knew and when they knew it.
Afraid of commitment? Buy me a coffee on Ko-fi — no subscription required!
Unrelated to today’s article but relevant to Sunday’s article………
Also, Joe Rogan hosted Mike Benz on the JRE podcast. I will be making a highlight tape for this one, but for those of you who want to get ahead of game, here’s the link:
Relative vs absolute risk reduction was among the biggest red flags at the start of this turkey that we were entering the Twilight Zone. In attempting to explain this ridiculous fraud to family members, I was greeted with blank stares followed by eye rolling.
*You're entering a world, not of sight and sound, but of mind.*
That's exactly what we entered: a world of media mind control.
Relative risk, absolute risk, it doesn't matter, the shot NEVER stopped transmission, and those lying liars knew it, so the mandates were criminal.