An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
Frankly, a few should go to prison but then again Washington protects its own.
***President Joe Biden on Tuesday received a classified intelligence report on the origins of the coronavirus that reportedly failed to conclusively determine if the outbreak was the result of spillover from animals to humans or an accidental lab leak, highlighting the difficulty of pinning down the cause of the pandemic amid China’s reticence to cooperate with international investigations. The information noted below fully challenges the quality of the classified report on the origins of Covid-19. Nothing is real, true or honest…remember that.
Newly released documents appear to contradict Dr. Anthony Fauci’s repeated claims that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
The internal documents detail the work of EcoHealth Alliance, an American research non-profit which used NIH funding to research novel bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab. Among the documents, which were obtained by The Interceptthrough a Freedom of Information Act request, is a previously unpublished EcoHealth Alliance grant proposal filed with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, which is run by Fauci.
The proposal requests $3.1 million for a project titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” which involved screening thousands of lab workers for novel bat coronaviruses. The grant was awarded for five years, from 2014 to 2019, and was subsequently renewed before being suspended by the Trump administration. The proposal directs $599,000 of the total grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for research designed to make the viruses more dangerous and/or infectious — and its author acknowledged the danger associated with such work.
“Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs, while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled,” it read.
After reviewing the documents, Gary Ruskin, executive director of a group probing COVID’s origins called U.S. Right to Know, told the Intercept that the grant was a “road map to the high-risk research that could have led to the current pandemic.”
Fauci has repeatedly insisted during his Senate testimony that the research being funded by the NIH at the WIV did not qualify as “gain-of-function” under the NIH’s current definition. But critics, including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, have accused Fauci of playing semantic games by excluding research which makes bat coronaviruses more transmissible — the commonly accepted definition of “gain-of-function” — from his more convenient definition.
Dr. Richard Ebright, biosafety expert and professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, has also disputed Fauci’s claims. Primarily, he has rebutted Fauci’s chief declaration that the NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV]” as “demonstrably false.”
Ebright told National Review that the NIH-financed work at the WIV “epitomizes” the definition of gain-of-function research, which involves working with “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (PPP)” or those pathogens “resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen.”
The Wuhan lab’s program qualified as gain-of-function research because it artificially engineered novel SARS-related coronaviruses to make them more transmissible and dangerous to humans, the breeding ground for accident, Ebright said.
Following the FOIA release secured by the Intercept, Ebright doubled down on his repudiation of Fauci, confirming that the NIH did conduct gain-of-function research during the five-year period in question.
“The materials show that the 2014 and 2019 NIH grants to EcoHealth with subcontracts to WIV funded gain-of-function research as defined in federal policies in effect in 2014-2017 and potential pandemic pathogen enhancement as defined in federal policies in effect in 2017-present,” Ebright tweeted.
He added that the “documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful.”
As evidence mounts in favor of Ebright’s conclusion, further discrediting Fauci, some Republican lawmakers have called for the doctor’s removal from his post in the Biden administration. Shortly after the FOIA disclosure, GOP Senator Josh Hawley demanded that Fauci step down and be subject to a congressional investigation for lying to the public about the NIH’s activities.
“Anthony Fauci has repeatedly and deliberately mislead Congress and the American people. Resign. And face a congressional inquiry,” he tweeted.
Will this Biden ordered investigation within 100 days include anything from the past including what France warned us about regarding the Wuhan Lab? You be the judge…read on.
The U.S. federal government should have stopped funding research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2015 when China reduced its cooperation with the French in building and operating the lab, according to the leader of an investigation into COVID-19’s origins by the State Department under the Trump administration.
In 2015, French intelligence officials warned the U.S. State Department and their own foreign ministry that China was cutting back on agreed collaboration at the lab, former State official David Asher, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute think tank, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
By 2017, the French “were kicked out” of the lab and cooperation ceased, leading French officials to warn the State Department that they had grave concerns as to Chinese motivations, according to Asher.
The State Department alleged in January 2021, at the end of the Trump administration, that the Wuhan lab had engaged in classified research on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.
Between October 2009 and May 2019, the U.S. Agency for International Development provided $1.1 million to the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance for a sub-agreement with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, according to USAID. EcoHealth Alliance also received funding from the Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency that was subcontracted to the Wuhan lab, New York magazine reported. National Institutes of Health grants to EcoHealth Alliance totaling $600,000 between 2014 and 2019 were subcontracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The NIH, Defense Department and USAID should have stopped sending U.S. federal funding to the Wuhan lab back when the French warned the State Department in 2015, Asher said. More here.
***
Stephen Mosher, a REAL China expert and previous radio guest on my radio show (several times) had this piece in the NY Post in part:
China had only one Level 4 lab that can “handle deadly coronaviruses,” and that lab just happened to be located in Wuhan at the very “epicenter of the epidemic.”
Underlining China’s shoddy lab-safety record, Xi Jinping himself had, in the early days of the crisis, warned about “lab safety” as a national-security priority.
Following Xi’s guidance, “the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology released a new directive titled: ‘Instructions on strengthening biosecurity management in microbiology labs that handle advanced viruses like the novel coronavirus.’ ”
As soon as the outbreak began, China’s military was put in charge, with the PLA’s top biowar expert, General Chen Wei, dispatched to Wuhan to deal with it.
Even at the time there was other evidence available, which likewise pointed to the lab — and to the PLA’s involvement:
The authorities ordered all of the early samples of the coronavirus collected by private and university labs in China — vital for tracing the origin and early spread of the disease — to be destroyed.
China’s civilian Center for Disease Control was completely shut out of the picture in favor of the PLA, suggesting a classified military program was involved.
Military academies and installations in and around Wuhan were closed around January 1, well before the Chinese public was notified that there was a problem.
China lied about human-to-human transmission, leaving the US and other countries unprepared for the rapid spread of the virus, ensuring that more lives would be lost.
The evidence was circumstantial, to be sure, but I was fairly certain by that point that I could have convinced a jury of China’s culpability. Even so, while I waited for more facts to surface, I was careful to call the “lab origin” just a possibility.
Facebook, however, didn’t wait. It quickly moved to suppress the column as “False Information,” refusing to unblock it until April 17. The mainstream media likewise piled on, slamming The Post for publishing the writings of a “conspiracy theorist.” Others who raised questions about the pandemic’s origins were heavily censored as well — if not “canceled” entirely.
Security personnel keep watch outside the Wuhan Institute of Virology.Thomas Peter/REUTERS
China locked down the Wuhan lab, and the US virology establishment closed ranks, both denying that gain-of-function research — or a PLA bioweapons research program — had anything to do with the pandemic.
It has taken over a year, but the attempted cover-ups on both sides of the Pacific have gradually unraveled.
During that time China has burned through a half-dozen increasingly implausible cover stories. After the collapse of the Wuhan Wet Market fable, China tried to pin the blame on a wild succession of animals — bats and pangolins and raccoon-dogs, oh my! — for harboring the virus. We seem now to be back to bats, and are being told that many years ago, in a cave far away from the Wuhan lab, minors fell ill from being peed upon, pooped upon, and even bitten by those same nasty, virus-harboring creatures.
But the wildest tale by far being bandied about by the Chinese authorities is that CoV-2 was a US bioweapon, created in the U. Army’s research labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland. As to how the “American Virus” — as they unabashedly call it — got to China, they have an answer for that too: it was secretly released on the unsuspecting Chinese population of Wuhan by the American soldier-athletes who participated in the October 2019 Military World Games in that city.
Biological science specialists, background, wear biosafety protective clothing for handling viral diseases at US Army Medical Research and Development Command at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland.Andrew Harnik/AP
Who makes up such bat-sh*t crazy stories about secret bioweapons and superspreading soldiers? The same people, it seems, whose fever dream for decades has been to do exactly the same thing. There are numerous scientific publications that prove Chinese labs were engaged in dangerous gain-of-function research, along with new evidence that these techniques were being used in an active bioweapons program that included the Wuhan lab. As China defector Dr. Yan Limeng has taught us, the PLA itself isolated the original bat coronavirus that served as the “backbone” or “template” for CoV-2. Additional genetic material was then spliced into this virus to make it more infectious and deadly to humans. This is not speculation.
Those doing the splicing left “signatures” behind in the genome itself. To boost a virus’ lethality, for example, those doing gain-of-function research customarily insert a snippet of RNA that codes for two arginine amino acids. This snippet — called double CGG — has never been found in any other coronaviruses, but is present in CoV-2. Besides this damning evidence, there are other indications of tampering as well.
The dwindling ranks of lab “deniers” continue to insist that the vast laboratory of nature is capable of infinite surprises. Of course that’s true. And it’s also true that if you have enough monkeys typing the four DNA bases A, C, G, and T on enough computer keyboards they will eventually produce a complete and accurate copy of the human genome, which is 6.4 billion such bases long. But what are the odds?
And what are the odds that the virus passed naturally from animals to humans?
Volunteers in protective suits disinfect a factory with sanitizing equipment in China on Feb. 18, 2020.China Daily via REUTERS
Dr. David Asher, who headed the now-canceled State Department investigation, put that very question to a biostatistician, and was told that the odds were roughly … 1 in 13 billion. In the face of that vanishingly small probability, Asher remarked, “to say this came out of a zoonotic situation is sort of ridiculous.”
What we do know, as former Deputy National Security Advisor (DNSA) Mathew Pottinger pointed out in a February interview, is that the PLA had been “doing secret classified animal experiments in that same laboratory [Wuhan Institute of Virology]” as early as 2017. While the Wuhan lab poses as a “civilian institution,” Pottinger said, US intelligence has determined that the lab has collaborated with China’s military on publications and secret bioweapons projects.
That’s David Asher’s opinion as well. “The Wuhan Institute of Virology is not the National Institute of Health,” he says. “It was operating a secret, classified program. In my view, and I’m just one person, my view is it was a biological weapons program.”
Dr. David Asher believes the Wuhan Institute of Virology was running a biological weapons program.Rod Lamkey/CNP
A Chinese book that recently fell into the hands of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) further confirms that Chinese military scientists have been focused on what they called the “new era of genetic weapons” since at least 2015. They begin by asserting that World War III would be fought with biological weapons, and go on to describe how viruses can be collected from nature and “artificially manipulated into an emerging human disease virus, then weaponized and unleashed.”
Sound familiar?
In fact, the scientists even singled out coronaviruses as a class of viruses that can be readily weaponized, and they suggest that the ideal candidate for a bioweapon would be something like the coronavirus that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS. It is worth noting that the virus that causes COVID-19 is a type of SARS virus, which is why the World Health Organization insists that we call it SARS-CoV-2. As in, the “second” SARS virus.
Peter Jennings, the executive director of ASPI, said the new document “clearly shows that Chinese scientists were thinking about military application for different strains of the coronavirus and thinking about how it could be deployed. It begins to firm up the possibility that what we have here is the accidental release of a pathogen for military use.”
After the collapse of the Wuhan Wet Market fable, China tried to pin the blame on a wild succession of animals — bats and pangolin.Alamy
The document, he went on to say, is the closest thing to a “smoking gun as we’ve got.”
Is it really that surprising that the same murderous regime that has brought us forced abortion and sterilization, forced organ harvesting, and genocide in real time would also be developing deadly bioweapons to release upon the world?
China had both the intention and the capability to take a harmless bat virus, turn it into a deadly pathogen, and then release it upon the world. And the evidence suggests that it did just that.
More than half of all Americans — including 59 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats — now believe the virus was made in a lab and released either accidentally or intentionally. Indeed, there has been a massive hardening of public opinion against the communist giant across the board, with 89 percent of adults now seeing the country as hostile or dangerous.
By killing 600,000 Americans, China has proven that it is both.
But whether the Biden administration makes China pay for its crimes is another question.
While many are calling for the resignation of Dr. Anthony Fauci, I say hold on. Why? Often, in fact most often, former government employees rarely are investigated, charged or prosecuted. I say just suspend him without pay until a full commission is launched.
There are all kinds of people reading through all the released Fauci emails and rightly so. While reading through many articles and posts relating to the emails where so appear to be smoking guns…we must consider what is not in the emails.
As Joe Biden has ordered the intelligence agencies to go through a full review and report back, a long application of strategic thinking is also in order. The reader is invited to ask their own questions in the comments section of this post.
For some context and courtesy of Bloomberg News in part:
No matter where the inquiry leads, the history of lab safety shows, at the very least, that leaks of pathogens have happened in the past — sometimes with deadly consequences. It also shows that even transparent, thorough investigations into the origins of an outbreak can end in uncertainty.
By the late 1970s, smallpox had been eradicated in nature, but work on it continued in a handful of labs around the world, including a facility in Birmingham, England, which had access to a particularly virulent strain. In the summer of 1978, a medical photographer working there named Janet Parker fell ill. When pustules spread across her upper body, a local doctor diagnosed it as a bad case of chickenpox.
It was the third leak of smallpox that decade from a British lab. The British government moved aggressively to contain the outbreak, quarantining hundreds of people and vaccinating many more. Thanks to their efforts, only one other person — Parker’s mother — developed the disease. But Parker died an excruciating, lonely death in an isolation ward — the last known victim of smallpox.
But there were other victims. At the time, the newspapers covering the episode fixated on the director of the laboratory, an expert on pox viruses named Henry Bedson. Despite an absence of evidence, the press blamed him for the outbreak. Quarantined at home and despondent, Bedson went out to his garden shed and slit his own throat; he died soon afterward.
The British government commissioned a thorough investigation into the outbreak. It turned up evidence that Bedson may not have observed sufficient safety protocols and speculated that Parker must have somehow contracted smallpox through contamination in the air ducts. Later, a lawsuit effectively refuted this explanation, leading to the unsettling possibility that Parker herself may have entered one of the work spaces without proper protection. The debate continues to this day.
When lab leaks take place in a secretive society, the difficult job of confirming the source of an outbreak gets much harder. A good case in point was the infamous anthrax outbreak in Sverdlovsk, an isolated city in the Soviet Union.
In 1979, rumors of anthrax killing dozens — or even thousands — began trickling out to the West. Later that year, Soviet journals confirmed some of these reports, noting that upward of a hundred people had contracted anthrax after ingesting contaminated meat; over 60 had died. A tragedy, yes, but perhaps inevitable: Anthrax was endemic in local animal populations.
Intelligence officials in the U.S. weren’t convinced. Satellite imagery showed what looked like decontamination trucks around the city, with considerable activity focused on a mysterious military facility known as Compound 19. CIA analysts hypothesized that the Soviets had mistakenly released a weaponized form of anthrax. More here.
***
Remember, Dr. Fauci has the Director of the NIAID since 1984. He not only knows the history of super bugs and pandemics but he also has access to the files and documentation of global laboratories and scientists.
Can we quit saying ‘lab leaks’, which infers an accident? Perhaps ‘released’ should replace ‘leak’. Anyway, moving on.
Exactly why was the CIA not called in by Fauci or the suggestion of that in 2019 or earlier like around the time of the warning cables that were sent by U.S. Embassy officials back to the State Department in 2018?
How come Dr. Fauci’s emails did not include communication exchanges with other countries that provided big financial aid to the Wuhan Lab like France and Canada?
As the Public Health Agency of Canada refuses to release uncensored internal documents, a Conservative MP says he wants to know how far Canada’s collaboration with China on Level-4 pathogens went — and why two federal scientists were let go by the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg in January.
“We need these documents. We need to know what the Government of Canada was doing through the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg with respect to cooperating with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China,” Conservative foreign affairs critic Michael Chong said during a special parliamentary committee hearing on Canada-China relations Monday night.
The special committee has demanded to know why two federal government scientists were escorted out of Canada’s only Level 4 Lab in July 2019, just four months after one of them shipped samples of the Ebola and Henipah viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China — stories first published by CBC News.
Two months after that shipment, on May 24, 2019, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) referred an “administrative matter” to RCMP that resulted in the removal of two Chinese research scientists — Xiangguo Qiu and her husband, Keding Cheng — and several international students on July 5.
No where in the Fauci emails is the request for the medical files of ‘patient zero’ or of any Chinese scientists that fell ill or died. Why?
Did Dr. Fauci reach out to the Galveston National Laboratory which is part of the University of Texas for any pandemic details? Not so much, why?
How come Dr. Fauci only had Dr. Deborah Birx as an addition to the White House Virus Task Force and other virology experts were not called on like other world health leaders?
How about any references to expert white papers that Dr. Fauci made? He only said data…what data?
There are hundreds of questions and standing up a full commission is past due. Meanwhile, suspect the doctor and start the real interviews and subpoenas. There are likely hundreds if not thousands more across the world that know more with evidence….Dr. Fauci makes no email inquiries and the same goes for the intelligence agencies, unless they have and that is being embargoed too.
“Expect the Unexpected: Ten Lessons on Truth, Service, and the Way Forward,” the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director’s book, will be published by National Geographic Books and available to the public by as early as November 2.
“In his own words, world-renowned infectious disease specialist Anthony Fauci shares the lessons that have shaped his life philosophy, offering an intimate view of one of the world’s greatest medical minds as well as universal advice to live by,” the book description on Amazon reads. More book details here.
Dr. Fauci is the highest paid government employee and frankly should be prosecuted that is before he is fired.
***
Related reading:
In a newly resurfaced paper from 2012, Dr. Anthony Fauci argued that the benefits of gain-of-function research are worth the increased risk of a potential pandemic-causing lab accident.
The Weekend Australian unearthed a paper Fauci wrote for the American Society for Microbiology in October 2012 in which he argued in support of gain-of-function research. Such research involves making viruses more infectious and/or deadly. Experts have raised the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic could have originated from a potential lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, where gain-of-function experiments on bat coronaviruses have been conducted.
***
Here is a tip sheet for the gigantic number of questions that still need to be asked about the China virus.
Since we don’t trust U.S. media sources and rightly so, it is prudent to go elsewhere in the world and learn what other experts know. Additionally, it is important to add in other U.S. agencies that have a conduit to all things China virus.
Consider the following below:
How about USAID?
PREDICT is enabling global surveillance for pathogens that can spillover from animal hosts to people by building capacities to detect and discover viruses of pandemic potential. The project is part of USAID’s Emerging Pandemic Threats program and is led by the UC Davis One Health Intitute.
PREDICT was initiated in 2009 to strengthen global capacity for detection and discovery of viruses with pandemic potential that can move between animals and people. Those include coronaviruses, the family to which SARS and MERS belong; paramyxoviruses, like Nipah virus; influenza viruses; and filoviruses, like the ebolavirus.
Working with partners in over 30 countries, the project is investigating the behaviors, practices and ecological and biological factors driving disease emergence, transmission and spread using the One Health approach.
Through these efforts, PREDICT has improved global disease recognition and has developed strategies and policy recommendations to minimize pandemic risk. Read more here.
From a media source in India in part:This research paper has been published by a newspaper in Australia. It has been said that the discussion of using the coronavirus as a biological weapon started in China in 2015 itself. At that time, scientists of China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and senior health officials in China had prepared a research paper, titled “The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bio-weapons”.
This means that in the year 2019, when the first case of coronavirus came to light in the city of Wuhan, China, a research paper was already prepared 4 years before that and it was prepared by the Chinese army scientists and senior health officers. More details here.
How about a media source from Taiwan?TAIPEI (Taiwan News) — Amid concerns about the safety and efficacy of Sinopharm’s COVID-19 vaccine, the history of the company’s lab in Wuhan has raised suspicions among biowarfare experts, the U.S. government, and the Taiwanese military over whether it continues to serve as a dual-use biological warfare (BW) facility for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
In 1993 and again in 1995, China declared the Wuhan Institute of Biological Products (WIBP), the hub of Sinopharm’s COVID-19 vaccine development, to be one of eight dual-use BW research facilities under its “national defensive biological warfare R&D program.” Although China has denied having an “offensive” biological warfare program since signing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), also known as the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), in 1984, the U.S. State Department in 2005 alleged that “China maintains some elements of an offensive [biological weapon] capability in violation of its BTWC obligations” and repeated the same charges in 2010, 2012, and 2014. The .pdf summary is found here –> https://idsa.in/system/files/jds/jds_9_2_2015_DanyShoham.pdf
How about British Intelligence?The former head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), Sir Richard Dearlove, said that the question of a lab leak has become an “intelligence issue” in which British spies may need to “incentivise” defectors within the communist country to come forward and reveal the truth of the origin of the Wuhan virus.
A senior Whitehall security source told the Daily Telegraph — a newspaper with close ties to the ruling Conservative government — that British intelligence investigators are working alongside their American counterparts to uncover the real origin of the pandemic.
“We are contributing what intelligence we have on Wuhan, as well as offering to help the American to corroborate and analyse any intelligence they have that we can assist with,” said the source.
“What is required to establish the truth behind the coronavirus outbreak is well-sourced intelligence rather than informed analysis, and that is difficult to come by.”
Sir Richard Dearlove, who has been a vocal proponent of the idea that the virus emanated from the Wuhan laboratory, said that many scientists refrained from backing the idea out of fear of appearing to side with former President Donald Trump. source
How about Ft. Detrick? That is the location for the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, which by the way is under the supervision of DHS… NBACC’s 160,000 square-foot facility and 51,927 square feet of lab space includes two centers: the National Bioforensic Analysis Center (NBFAC), which conducts technical analyses in support of federal law enforcement investigations, and the National Biological Threat Characterization Center, which conducts experiments and studies to better understand biological vulnerabilities and hazards. NBACC is committed to maintaining a culture of safety. Its fully accredited, state-of-the-art lab facilities are at the biosafety levels (BSL) 2, 3, and 4, providing the highest standards of safety and experimental capability available. Its BSL-4 accreditation allows NBACC to perform R&D on pathogens for which no vaccine or treatment exists and makes it one of seven such facilities in the United States. NBACC is a partner in the National Interagency Confederation for Biological Research at Fort Detrick. This consortium includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration; National Cancer Institute; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Integrated Research Facility; Naval Medical Research Center Biological Defense Research Directorate; U.S. Army Installation Management Command; U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command; U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases; and U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Disease-Weed Science Research Unit. As an interagency partner, NBACC coordinates a range of scientific, technical, operational, and infrastructure-related activities that enhance scientific collaboration and productivity. The fact sheet is here.
Anyone asking questions of the Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Montana? NIAID’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) in Hamilton, Montana, produced images of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, previously known as 2019-nCoV) on its scanning and transmission electron microscopes on Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2020. SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19 disease, which has grown to be a global public health emergency since cases were first detected in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. RML investigator Emmie de Wit, Ph.D., provided the virus samples as part of her studies, microscopist Elizabeth Fischer produced the images, and the RML visual medical arts office digitally colorized the images.
Is there a word more descriptive than depravity that really works to define this work between the University of Pittsburgh and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases? Where is the rest of the media on this? Anyone in Congress? Planned Parenthood provided the fetuses….
A new video from the Center for Medical Progress exposes a gristly experiment at the University of Pittsburgh that involved scalping five-month aborted babies and implanting their scalps onto rodents.
Now, Pennsylvania leaders are demanding an investigation and urging the university to stop its experiments using aborted baby body parts.
“Publicly available information demonstrates that Pitt hosts some of the most barbaric experiments carried out on aborted human infants, including scalping 5-month-old aborted fetuses to stitch onto lab rats,” the Center for Medical Progress said in a statement.
The information comes from a study that University of Pittsburgh researchers published in September 2020 in the journal “Scientific Reports.” It describes how scientists used scalps from aborted babies to create “humanized” mice and rats to study the human immune system.
Along with the study, the researchers published photos of their experiment – horrific images that show tufts of babies’ hair growing on the rodents.
The Center for Medical Progress video raises even more concerns about unethical and potentially illegal practices at the university, including babies potentially being born alive in abortions, killed and then dissected for their organs.
It also suggests the University of Pittsburgh and local Planned Parenthood, which supplies aborted baby body parts, may be involved in an “illegal quid pro quo” partnership.
“Local Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania abortion providers supply the aborted fetuses, while Pitt sponsors the local Planned Parenthood’s operations,” the investigation found.
What’s more, a number of the experiments using aborted baby body parts at the university are funded by U.S. taxpayers through the National Institutes of Health and, in particular, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases office, CMP found in its investigation.
The Pennsylvania Family Institute letter also urged the university to end its unethical research in an open letter in response to the investigation.
“We call on the University of Pittsburgh to stop all experimentation on aborted babies and the inhumane practice of grafting their skin and body parts onto rodents,” it says.
They urged the state legislature to conduct a full investigation of the university, Planned Parenthood and other groups involved in the experiments.
“This ghastly finding is a product of Pitt’s systemic practices of using aborted babies for inhumane research,” they wrote. “Pitt has been involved in hundreds of fetal kidneys and other organs from aborted babies being distributed for research as part of a project funded by the National Institute of Health. Pitt has also had scientists harvesting fetal livers ‘in vivo’ from fetuses delivered via labor induction.”
Information in the video comes from public documents, including research published in scientific journals and on the National Institutes of Health website.
Action: Sign the open letter calling on the University of Pittsburgh to end its experiments on aborted babies and supporting a full investigation by the Pennsylvania General Assembly. source
***
We used the UPMC-Hillman Cancer Center and Tissue and Research Pathology within the University of Pittsburgh Biospecimen Core, which is supported in part by the NIH award P30CA047904. Miss Vanshika Narala and Miss Nivitha Periyapatna, Department of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, University of Pittsburgh assisted with collecting histological data and analysis. Berthony Deslouches, Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of Pittsburgh provided insightful advice on developing this project. This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (R21AI135412) and National Institutes of Health (NIH)-Fogarty International Center (FIC) (D43TW010039). The National Institute of Health, which funds this work, requires scientists to submit final peer-reviewed journal manuscripts that arise from NIH funds to the digital archive PubMed Central upon acceptance for publication. Further study details here.
