Connect with us

Trending

U.S. Declassifies COVID-19 Origins Report

Published

on

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence finally released a government report on the origins of COVID-19 on Friday. The chairs of the House Intelligence and Coronavirus Pandemic committees say the report lends credence to the theory that the virus may have originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

Early this year, Congress enacted legislation requiring the declassification of evidence on possible links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and the pandemic’s beginnings.

The declassified study outlines the Intelligence Community’s (IC) knowledge of the COVID-19 beginnings and offers insight into the WIV’s operations prior to the pandemic. It does not, however, conclusively identify the virus’s origin.

“All agencies continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses to explain the first human infection,” the 10-page declassified report states (pdf).

The report includes assessments from the National Intelligence Council (NIC), the Department of Energy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and other unnamed agencies.

Most organizations, including the NIC and four other Intelligence Community organizations, concur that the virus was likely spread naturally by contact with an infected animal or a close relative. The FBI and the Department of Energy, although having differing justifications, both believe that the virus first appeared in a lab.

The CIA and another agency are unable to determine the precise origin of COVID-19, as both hypotheses rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting, the report states.

Some of the assessments in the report were previously known.

In order to determine if the original human infection resulted from contact with an infected animal spontaneously or if it was related to a laboratory occurrence, the IC broadened its investigation into COVID-19 in March. According to “almost all” of the agencies involved, the virus was neither genetically modified nor produced as a biological weapon, as stated in the study. Agencies dispute with the idea that the study was done in a lab, though.

Wuhan Experiments ‘Left No Traces of Genetic Modification’

Before the pandemic, the WIV engaged in collaboration with China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) on “public health-related research.” Some of the WIV scientists conducted experiments on coronaviruses, but there is no evidence of genetic modification in these viruses, according to the report.

However, the report states that the WIV did not possess viruses that could “plausibly be the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2” before the pandemic. Instead, the viruses were primarily used for “virology and vaccine-related work.”

The WIV supported research initiatives between 2017 and 2019 and employed some of its staff in efforts to “enhance China’s knowledge of pathogens and early disease warning capabilities for defensive and biosecurity needs of the military.”

“The IC assesses that this work was intended for public health needs and that the coronaviruses known to be used were too distantly related to have led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2,” the report states.

Before the pandemic, the WIV carried out considerable research on coronaviruses, including genetic testing and animal collection, notably of bats.

The study confirms that genetic engineering work is being done at the WIV but claims that there is no “direct evidence that a specific research-related incident occurred involving WIV personnel before the pandemic that could have caused the COVID pandemic.”

The study, which cites a 2017 dissertation by a WIV student, says that several of the WIV’s genetic engineering experiments on coronaviruses included methods that might make it difficult to identify deliberate modifications.

“Some of the WIV’s genetic engineering projects on coronaviruses involved techniques that could make it difficult to detect intentional changes,” the report states.

“A 2017 dissertation by a WIV student showed that reverse genetic cloning techniques—which are standard techniques used in advanced molecular laboratories—left no traces of genetic modification of SARS-like coronaviruses.”

The WIV researchers tried to clone unrelated pathogenic viruses and genetically modified chimeras of coronaviruses that resembled SARS. SARS-like coronaviruses were subjected to reverse genetic cloning procedures, despite the fact that the paper claims there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has ever undergone purposeful genetic change.

Inadequate Biosafety Precautions at Wuhan Lab

Before the pandemic, the WIV had raised biosafety issues when dealing with coronaviruses that resembled SARS.

The report noted that some WIV researchers “probably did not use adequate biosafety precautions at least some of the time prior to the pandemic in handling SARS-like coronaviruses.” This increased the risk of potential exposure to viruses.

The report adds that biosafety upgrades, training, and purchases were being done in the middle of 2019, but the IC is not aware of any particular event that led to those actions. This happened at the same time as China’s more extensive biosecurity laws.

Even after the WIV’s BSL-4 laboratory was accredited in 2017, one problem raised in the study is the lack of openness around China’s determinations regarding which diseases required stricter biocontainment measures. At the facility, there was a dearth of staff who were adequately trained.

Despite recognized hazards, tests were nevertheless carried out in lower containment facilities in 2019.

A few months after the COVID-19 epidemic started in 2020, the high-containment laboratories of the WIV were inspected. The inspection found a number of problems, including the need for equipment updates, more disinfection precautions, and ventilation system upgrades.

Although the results were made during the institute’s crisis reaction to the COVID-19 epidemic, the study included a warning that they may not be accurate. “not necessarily indicative” of the WIV’s biosafety status prior to the outbreak.

In the fall of 2019, some WIV researchers fell sick before the COVID-19 outbreak. The IC’s assessment “neither supports nor refutes” the theory that they were infected with SARS-CoV-2, saying that their symptoms were “consistent with but not diagnostic of COVID-19.” Their symptoms, the report states, “could have been caused by a number of diseases and some of the symptoms were not consistent with COVID-19.”

China Has ‘Some Serious Explaining To Do’

In a joint statement, Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chair of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, said the declassified report is “a promising step toward full transparency.”

The two Republican lawmakers declared that “everyone deserves to know the truth.” The pair said the information gathered by their committees during this Congress and the last “supports the likelihood of a lab leak.”

Turner and Wenstrup said their committees “will continue to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and the information obtained today will help to further its investigation.”

“The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army have some serious explaining to do. This declassified report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Intelligence Community lends credence to the lab leak theory, which suggests that the coronavirus outbreak most likely originated from a Wuhan virology lab in China,” they said.

“This is on top of the Government Accountability Office’s report released last week outlining the flow of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Chinese entities known to be doing coronavirus research,” their statement continued.

“While we appreciate the report from ODNI, the corroboration of all available evidence, along with further investigation into the origins of COVID-19 must continue.”

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

Big Pharma

Abortion Pill Complications 22X Higher Than Previously Reported, Per New Study

Published

on

By

A newly released analysis is raising serious questions about the safety profile of mifepristone, the drug responsible for over half of abortions in the United States. While abortion-rights advocates, corporate media outlets, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintain that the drug is “safe and effective,” a comprehensive study based on real-world insurance claims paints a far more concerning picture.

Described as the “largest known study of the abortion pill,” the report was conducted by Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ryan Anderson and Director of Data Analysis Jamie Bryan Hall. Using a massive dataset that included Medicaid, TRICARE, Medicare, Department of Veterans Affairs, and private insurance claims, the researchers analyzed 865,727 prescriptions of mifepristone distributed to 692,873 women between 2017 and 2023.

The findings are striking: approximately 10.9 percent of those chemical abortions—about 94,605 cases—involved potentially life-threatening “serious adverse events” within 45 days of taking the drug. These complications included emergency room visits, hemorrhage, sepsis, infection, and follow-up surgeries. This complication rate is at least 22 times higher than the <0.5 percent figure cited by the FDA on the Mifeprex label.

The researchers noted that some patients experienced complications in multiple categories, and that the 45-day window used for measurement was “conservative,” especially considering that the FDA has relied on studies using a timeframe of up to 72 days.

One chart from the study revealed that among women who sought post-abortion care within 45 days:

  • 15.1% visited the emergency room,
  • 8.5% required surgical treatment,
  • 2.5% experienced hemorrhage,
  • 1.9% suffered infections, and
  • 0.9% were diagnosed with sepsis.

“These outcomes were drawn from actual claims data,” the researchers emphasized, “not modeled projections or self-reported surveys.” In Anderson’s words to The Federalist: “This study is the statistical equivalent of a category 5 hurricane hitting the prevailing narrative of the abortion industry. It reveals, based on real-world data, the shocking number of women who suffer serious medical consequences because of the abortion pill.”

The FDA originally approved mifepristone in 2000 based on 10 clinical trials involving only 30,966 patients—women who were described as “prescreened,” “generally healthy,” and treated in controlled environments. The authors of the new study argue that those trials are both outdated and unrepresentative of today’s broad and diverse patient base.

“The women in our dataset receive (or fail to receive) pre- and post-abortion healthcare of the real-world quality that prevails in the U.S. today, not the carefully controlled regimen of care that ordinarily prevails in a clinical trial,” the study says.

Despite repeated petitions from pro-life medical groups to revisit the approval of mifepristone, the FDA has consistently declined to take action. Critics argue the agency failed to meet its legal obligation to address the concerns. Meanwhile, regulatory oversight has continued to loosen. By 2016, the FDA under the Obama administration had altered the drug’s dosing, cut down the number of in-person doctor visits required, broadened who could prescribe it, and eliminated requirements to report non-fatal complications.

The Biden administration went further. In 2021, the FDA permanently allowed mifepristone to be delivered by mail, bypassing the need for a clinic visit. Pharmacies like Walgreens and CVS were later authorized to dispense the pill. As of 2023, a woman can obtain mifepristone with just one telehealth appointment with “any approved healthcare provider (not necessarily a physician)” and self-administer the drug at home. Alarmingly, prescribers are not required to report adverse events unless they learn the patient has died.

The study recommends that the FDA reinstate its original safety protocols. These would include requiring multiple in-person visits, physician-only prescribing, ultrasound confirmation of gestational age and the absence of ectopic pregnancy, and mandatory reporting of complications. The goal, according to the authors, is not only to reduce immediate harm but also to facilitate better long-term safety tracking.

“The FDA should further investigate the harm this drug causes to women and, based on objective safety criteria, reconsider its approval altogether. Women deserve better than the abortion pill,” the study concludes.

While legal efforts to challenge the pill’s availability have so far been unsuccessful, the issue remains live. In 2023, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the merits of mifepristone’s approval, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion left open the possibility for the Court to consider a more suitable challenge in the future.

SOURCE: THE FEDERALIST

Continue Reading

Trending

Top 10 Online Casinos in Österreich