Connect with us

Biden Administration

REPORT: Fauci, Other NIH officials May Not Have Been Legally Appointed to Their Offices

Published

on

According to a year-long investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans, former National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease (NAIAD) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci and a dozen other NIH directors do not appear to have been legitimately appointed to their positions.

According to GOP committee aides speaking on background, Mr. Fauci and the others were supposed to serve five-year terms beginning no later than December 13, 2021, but repeated requests to Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra for documents confirming the appointments have been ignored or delayed since March 2022.

Every choice made by the directors, most importantly the recipients of over $26 billion in research awards, might be the subject of protracted litigation or be completely thrown out due to doubts about their legal standing.

“We are being cautious about the implications here because this is unprecedented,” one of the GOP aides told journalists. It is not clear, the aides said, if, for example, the entire award process would have to be repeated, a process that could cause chaos among researchers and additional costs to taxpayers.

fauci

The most recent grant to Eco-Health Alliance, a non-profit organization based in New York through which the NIH donated at least $1.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, is one of the $26 billion in grants that are currently under scrutiny. Many intelligence and biological professionals concur that the COVID-19 coronavirus, which has killed more than 1 million Americans, originated at the Wuhan lab. Federal authorities declared a national pandemic in response to the illness, which caused significant social, political, and economic harm and persisted for more than a year.

A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) defended the appointments, reportedly saying that “the committee’s allegations are clearly politically motivated and lack merit. As their own report shows, the prior administration appointed at least five NIH IC officials under the process they now attack. The Department stands by the legitimacy of these NIH IC Directors’ reappointments.”

In a July 7, 2023, letter to Mr. Becerra, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the energy and commerce chairman,  said his “failure to follow the law and ensure accountability of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding at [NIH] … could have grave implications for the validity of actions taken by 14 NIH Institute and Center (IC) Directors during their unlawful tenure, including former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci.”

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), leader of the panel’s oversight and investigations subcommittee, and Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), chairman of the health subcommittee, also joined Ms. McMorris Rodgers in signing the letter to Mr. Becerra.

The 21st Century Cures Act, which was adopted by Congress and signed into law by former President Barack Obama, required Mr. Becerra to appoint the 14 to fresh five-year terms by December 13, 2021. According to the signers, this was the root of the issue. Additionally, the Cures Act stipulates that the HHS secretary, not the NIH director, must make the appointments.

“It has become increasingly clear that you never appointed or reappointed the 14 NIH IC Directors in December of 2021. HHS and the NIH repeatedly assured the committee that the NIH IC Directors were validly reappointed but did not produce proper supporting documentation,” the signers told Mr. Becerra.

“For example, in its first response to the committee on April 5, 2022, the NIH claimed ‘[a]ll current IC Directors who were serving as of December 13, 2016, have undergone review and have been reappointed to new 5-year term appointments,’ and submitted a chart showing that the NIH Director was the official who made the reappointments of the NIH IC Directors, which even if true, is contrary to what the law requires,” they said.

The signers informed Mr. Becerra that despite repeated inquiries from the committee to HHS for documentation relating to the 14 nominations, they had not received any firm responses up until a few weeks ago.

“On June 19, 2023, HHS finally produced documents, titled ‘Ratification of Prior Selection and Prospective Appointment: Appointment Affidavit’ (hereinafter ‘Appointment Affidavit’), and signed by you, purporting to show that some of the NIH IC Directors at issue were reappointed,” the signers wrote.

“However, the Appointment Affidavits were signed on June 8, 2023, and June 15, 2023—not December 13, 2021. Critically, no appointment affidavits were produced for two NIH IC Directors, Dr. Fauci and Dr. Roger Glass, who were serving in December 2016, but retired before June 2023,” they continued.

The signers said the June 2023 appointment affidavits “purport to ratify the prior selection of the NIH IC Directors and to prospectively reappoint them. Here selection refers to actions taken by the NIH Director to identify candidates to recommend to [Becerra] for appointment.”

But the affidavits describe the reappointments as prospective, which means, according to the signers, that “the June 2023 reappointments do not retroactively ratify the decisions that NIH IC Directors made while not lawfully appointed—those decisions occurring between December 14, 2021, and the June 2023 reappointments affidavits. A recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision also suggests that actions taken by NIH IC Directors while they were not lawfully appointed are legally invalid.”

The signers added that Mr. Becerra’s “failure to follow the 21st Century Cures Act and reappoint 14 of the 27 IC Directors, which represents just over 50 percent of NIH IC Directors, is unacceptable. You have not complied with your oath to faithfully discharge the duties of your office.”

The House Republicans also accused HHS and NIH officials of spending “15 months obstructing the committee to cover up your failure only makes matters worse. HHS and the NIH should have known within days of receiving the committee’s March 14, 2022, letter that the reappointments as legally required had not occurred.”

The impact on the NIH will be nearly incalculable if the signers are right that every decision made by the IC officials after December 14, 2021, was unlawful. This is because, in addition to putting nearly $26 billion in research grants in jeopardy for what could be years of expensive litigation, contracts that have already been signed, personnel actions, including hiring and firing, and policy decisions, will also be in tumult.

Biden Administration

Kamala Harris Allegedly Covered Up Biden’s Mental Decline, Democratic Source Says

Published

on

SACRAMENTO, CA — Former Los Angeles Mayor and current California gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa has publicly alleged that Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra were involved in concealing former President Joe Biden’s mental and physical decline during his time in office.

Villaraigosa, a Democrat, made the claim amid a heated California gubernatorial race. Becerra, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, is also a candidate, while speculation continues over a potential Harris bid. The race comes as current Governor Gavin Newsom reaches the end of his second and final term, per California’s two-term limit.

In a statement referencing recent reporting and excerpts from the book Original Sin, Villaraigosa stated:

“What I’ve seen in news coverage and excerpts from the new book ‘Original Sin’ is deeply troubling. At the highest levels of our government, those in power were intentionally complicit or told outright lies in a systematic cover up to keep Joe Biden’s mental decline from the public.”

Both Harris and Becerra previously served as California Attorney General. Villaraigosa emphasized their past leadership roles, stating:

“Now, we have come to learn this cover up includes two prominent California politicians who served as California Attorney General – one who is running for Governor and another who is thinking about running for Governor.”

He added:

“Those who were complicit in the cover up should take responsibility for the part they played in this debacle, hold themselves accountable, and apologize to the American people. I call on Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra to do just that – and make themselves available to voters and the free press because there’s a lot of questions that need to be answered.”

Becerra responded in a statement, saying:

“It’s clear the President was getting older, but he made the mission clear: run the largest health agency in the world, expand care to millions more Americans than ever before, negotiate down the cost of prescription drugs, and pull us out of a world-wide pandemic. And we delivered.”

Kamala Harris has not issued a public response. Fox News Digital reported that it reached out to the offices of Harris and the Bidens but had not received a reply at the time of publication.

The allegations come as discussions about Biden’s cognitive and physical health continue. Earlier this month, during an appearance on The View, Biden dismissed claims of cognitive decline during his presidency.

In related developments, Biden’s personal office recently confirmed that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer characterized by a high Gleason score and metastasis to the bone.

Villaraigosa’s comments are the latest in a growing list of concerns raised within the Democratic Party about leadership transparency and accountability in the final years of the Biden administration.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden Officials Accused of Delaying Public Warning on COVID-19 Vaccine Heart Risks, Senate Report Alleges

Published

on

A newly released interim report from Senator Ron Johnson’s office claims top U.S. health officials in the Biden administration withheld critical information in early 2021 about potential heart-related side effects associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. The 54-page report alleges that despite receiving multiple warnings about the risks—particularly cases of myocarditis and related conditions in young people—federal agencies delayed issuing formal alerts for several months.

According to the report, health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were informed as early as February 2021 about international concerns, including an attempt by Israel’s Ministry of Health to raise alarm over roughly 40 myocarditis cases tied to the Pfizer vaccine. At that time, Israel’s vaccination campaign was further along than the U.S.’s, offering an early view of potential adverse effects.

In response to Israel’s outreach, FDA officials acknowledged limitations in existing data and asked for further information. However, despite growing domestic reports of heart inflammation—more than 158 cases by April—the agencies did not formally update the public until late June. The vaccine was nonetheless approved for adolescents in May.

By late May, internal deliberations began over whether to issue a Health Alert Network (HAN) message, which is typically used by the CDC to quickly notify clinicians and public health departments of emerging health threats. Some officials reportedly feared sounding “alarmist.” Others questioned whether the data truly warranted a full-scale warning. Ultimately, the HAN alert was shelved in favor of a more subdued website notice issued on May 28.

In the interim, internal talking points continued to describe the condition as rare and urged continued vaccination. The official FDA label for both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines wasn’t updated to reflect the myocarditis risk until June 25.

The report, while critical, notes that many individuals who developed myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis after vaccination experienced a resolution of symptoms, a finding consistent with CDC data.

Senator Johnson, a frequent critic of the federal pandemic response, has argued that transparency was lacking during this period. “The full extent of the Biden administration’s failure to immediately warn the public about all COVID-19 vaccine adverse events must be completely exposed,” the report concludes.

Health officials involved in the decisions, including then-FDA commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock and then-CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, have not yet publicly responded to the findings in the interim report.

The release comes amid ongoing political scrutiny over pandemic-era decision-making and the future of public health communications in the wake of COVID-19. The Biden administration and health agencies have consistently maintained that the benefits of mRNA vaccines outweigh the risks, particularly during the height of the pandemic when COVID-19 posed a significant public health threat.

As investigations continue, Johnson’s subcommittee says it plans to further examine the internal communications and decision-making processes of the nation’s top health agencies.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

The Biden Admin’s Attempt to Ban Cigarettes Just Days Before Trump Returns Setting Up For Boost in Criminal Cartels and Black Market

Published

on


Biden Administration’s Nicotine Ban: A Move Toward Regulation or a Boost for Cartels?

In a controversial move during its final days, the Biden administration is advancing a proposal to drastically lower nicotine levels in cigarettes, effectively banning traditional products on the market. While the administration frames the measure as a step toward reducing smoking addiction, critics argue it will backfire, fueling black markets and empowering criminal cartels.

Regulatory Shift with Broad Implications

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirmed that its proposed rule to establish maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes has completed regulatory review. The measure is part of a broader effort to make cigarettes less addictive, potentially shaping one of the most impactful tobacco policies in U.S. history.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf previously stated that the initiative aims to “decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit.” However, opponents warn that this policy could create new public safety and economic challenges.

A “Gift” to Organized Crime

Critics of the proposed regulation, including former ATF official Rich Marianos, are sounding the alarm. Marianos described the plan as a “gift with a bow and balloons to organized crime cartels,” arguing that it would open the floodgates for illegal tobacco trafficking.

Mexican cartels, Chinese counterfeiters, and Russian mafias are well-positioned to exploit the demand for high-nicotine cigarettes. These groups, already entrenched in smuggling operations, would likely ramp up efforts to meet consumer demand. This shift would not only enrich organized crime but also compromise public health by introducing unregulated, potentially more harmful products into the market.

Unintended Consequences for Public Health

While the FDA’s goal is to reduce smoking rates, experts suggest the policy may have the opposite effect. Smokers could resort to “compensatory smoking,” consuming more cigarettes to achieve their desired nicotine levels. This behavior increases exposure to harmful chemicals like tar, negating the intended health benefits.

Additionally, the regulation could discourage smokers from transitioning to safer alternatives, such as vaping or nicotine replacement therapies. By removing higher-nicotine products from the legal market, the government risks alienating individuals who might otherwise seek healthier pathways to quitting smoking.

National Security and Economic Concerns

Beyond health implications, the nicotine ban raises significant national security issues. A 2015 State Department report highlighted the role of tobacco trafficking in funding terrorist organizations and criminal networks. Reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes could expand this illicit market, providing criminal groups with a lucrative new revenue stream.

Moreover, law enforcement agencies could face increased pressure as they work to combat tobacco smuggling alongside ongoing efforts to address opioid and fentanyl trafficking. This strain on resources could compromise broader public safety initiatives.

Balancing Public Health and Freedom

The proposed nicotine reduction also ignites debates over personal freedom. While reducing addiction is a laudable goal, critics argue that adults should retain the right to make their own choices regarding tobacco use. For many, the measure feels like government overreach, imposing a paternalistic approach to health regulation.

As the Biden administration pushes forward with its nicotine reduction proposal, the policy’s broader implications remain uncertain. While intended to curb addiction and promote public health, critics warn of significant risks, including empowering organized crime, increasing smoking rates, and straining law enforcement resources.

A more balanced approach—focused on education, harm reduction, and access to cessation resources—may better address smoking-related challenges without creating new societal harms.


Continue Reading

Trending

Top 10 Online Casinos in Österreich