Walensky and Fauci Fumble in Their Responses to the Senate Committee, with Rand Paul’s Call for Fauci to Resign – But is the Senate Culpable as Well?

Rand to Fauci: “You won’t admit that it’s dangerous, and for that lack of judgement, I think it’s time that you resign.”

This post is not meant to convey whether or not there is an existence of a “deadly virus” or not. But it is to point out the suspicious nature of experiments that the NIH has funded/endorsed in regards to gain-of-function research, and also to show the indirect and dishonest responses from two individuals who have been spear-heading the shady “coronavirus/vaccine” situation.

The spotlight is on CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, and NIH/NIAID Infectious Disease “expert” Anthony Fauci.

Now, I want to first preface by saying that I am withholding judgement on the legitimacy of Senate hearings to begin with. While I would love to believe that there are indeed good politicians in high places that can make real change in ousting corruption in big establishments, many are speculating that psyops have been put in place to prolong certain narratives while keeping people’s hopes alive that something will be done about it. And of course we can’t ignore the possibility that even if there are those who are trying to make a real positive change, they may be set against a huge criminal organization who will stop at nothing in order to drive their own agenda forward.

Case in point: Walensky, the FDA, Pfizer, etc. have already gone ahead with their atrocious approval of these dangerous COVID “vaccines” on children, in which this agenda should never have gone on so far to begin with since there is ample evidence that the vaccines have nothing to do with our health and are definitely NOT “safe and effective”.

So to continue witnessing this farce without arrests being made casts a dubious look into the justice system as it is. Not only do Fauci, Bourla, Gelman, Daszak, Walensky, Gates, their agencies, as well as complicit governmental bodies, including Joe Biden, etc. have immense crimes to answer for, but the whole legal/legislative systems seems to be right behind them if this is allowed to continue further.

(This is, of course, under the assumptions that the whole of the legal/legislative structure isn’t already completely corrupted/broken to begin with…)

With that being said, I would still like to point out the following two Senators that are at least calling out Walensky and Fauci for their complicity in keeping this ruse going. Senators Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy certainly seem as if they are trying to get to the bottom of these narratives. But could they be merely actors on a stage? Keeping us happily engaged in believing that the “good guys” are making progress? Or are they genuinely one of the few brave souls standing up to deceit and subterfuge?

I will say this: while Anthony Fauci is a known liar, how good is his acting? He certainly looks shaken up as Rand Paul questions him…

Senator Rand Paul@58:24: “Fauci, I don’t expect you today to admit that you approved of NIH funding for gain-of-function research at Wuhan. But your repeated denials have worn thin and the majority of Americans, frankly, don’t believe you.

Even the NIH now admits that EcoHealth Alliance did perform experiments in Wuhan that created viruses not found in nature that actually did gain in lethality.

The facts are clear. The NIH did fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan despite your protestations. You can deny it all you want, but even the Chinese authors of the paper, in their paper, admit that viruses not found in nature were created, and yes they gained in infectivity.

Your persistent denials though are not simply a stain on your reputation, but are clear and present danger to the country, and to the world. As Professor Kevin Esvelt of MIT has written, “Gain of function research looks like a gamble that civilization can’t afford to risk.” And yet here we are again, with you steadfast in your denials. Why does it matter? Because gain-of-function research with laboratory created viruses not found in nature, could cause a pandemic even worse the next time.

We’re suffering today from one that has a mortality of approximately 1%, they’re experimenting with viruses that have mortalities of between 15 and 50%. Yes, our civilization could be at risk from one of these viruses.

Experiments that combine unknown viruses with known pandemic causing viruses are incredibly risky. Experiments that combine unknown viruses with coronaviruses that have as much as 50% mortality could endanger civilization as we know it.

And here you sit. Unwilling to accept any responsibility for the current pandemic, and unwilling to take any steps to prevent gain-of-function research from possibly unleashing an even more deadly virus.

You mislead the public by saying that the published viruses could not be COVID. Well exactly no one is alleging that. No one is alleging that the published viruses by the Chinese are COVID. What we are saying is that this was risky type of research; gain-of-function research. It was risky to share this with the Chinese, and that COVID may have been created from a not yet revealed virus. We don’t anticipate the Chinese are going to reveal the virus if it came from their lab.

You know that, but you continue to mislead. You continue to support NIH money going to Wuhan. You continue to say you trust the Chinese scientist. You appear to have learned nothing from this pandemic.

Will you today finally take some responsibility for funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan?”

Anthony Fauci: “Senator, with all due respect, I disagree with so many of the things that you’ve said.

Gain – first of all, gain-of-function is a very nebulous term. We have spent, not us, but outside bodies, a considerable amount of effort to give a more precise definition to the type of research that is of concern that might lead to a dangerous situation.

You are aware of that. That is called P3CO.”

Senator Rand Paul: “We’re aware that you deleted “gain-of-function” from the NIH website.”

Anthony Fauci: “Well I can get back to that a moment, if we have time. But let’s get back to the operating framework and guide rails of which we operate under. And you have ignored them. The guidelines are very very clear, that you have to be dealing with a pathogen that clearly is shown and very likely to be highly transmissible in an uncontrollable way in humans and to have a high degree of morbidity and mortality, and that you do experiments to enhance that. Hence the word EPPP: Enhanced Pathogens of Potential Pandemic.”

Senator Rand Paul: “So when EcoHealth Alliance took the virus SHC-014 and combined it with WIV-1 and caused a recombinant virus that doesn’t exist in nature, and it made mice sicker, mice that had humanized cells, you’re saying that that’s not gain-of-function research?”

Anthony Fauci: “According to the framework and guidelines of – “

Senator Rand Paul: “So what you’re doing is defining away gain-of-function. You’re simply saying it doesn’t exist because you changed the definition on the NIH website. This is terrible and you’re – you’re completely trying to escape the idea that we should do something about trying to prevent a pandemic from leaking from a lab.

There’s – the preponderance of evidence now points towards this coming from the lab, and what you’ve done is change the definition on your website to try to cover your ass, basically. That’s what you’ve done. You’ve changed the website to try to have a new definition that doesn’t include the risky research that’s going on.

Until you admit that it’s risky, we’re not going to get anywhere. You have to admit that this research was risky. The NIH has now rebuked them. Your own agency has rebuked them.

But the thing is, you’re still unwilling to admit that they gained in function when they say that they became sicker. They gained in lethality; it’s a new virus. That’s not gain-of-function?”

Anthony Fauci: “According to the definition that is currently operable… you know – Senator, let’s make it clear for the people who are listening.

The current definition was done over a 2-3 year period by outside bodies, including the NSABB, two conferences by the National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine, on December 2014, March 2016. We commissioned external risk benefit assessment, and then on January of 2017, the office of science and technology policy of the White House issued the current policy.

I have not changed any definition.”

Senator Rand Paul: “And coincidentally, coincidentally the definition appeared on the same day the NIH said that, yes, there was a gain of function in Wuhan, the same day the definition appeared – the new definition, to try to define a way what’s going on in Wuhan.

Until you accept it, until you accept responsibility, we’re not going to get anywhere close to trying to prevent another lab leak of this dangerous sort of experiment. You won’t admit that it’s dangerous, and for that lack of judgement, I think it’s time that you resign.”

Chairman Murray: “Thank you Senator Paul. And I would like, um, to give the time to Dr. Fauci.”

Anthony Fauci: “Yeah, well, there were so many things that are egregious misrepresentation here, uh, Madame Chair, that I don’t think I’d be able to refute all of them, but just a couple of them, for the listens to here for – 

You has said that I’m unwilling to take any responsibility for the current pandemic. I have no responsibility for the current pandemic. The current pandemic. Okay?

Number two, you said the overwhelming amount of evidence indicates that’s a lab leak; I believe most card-carrying viral phylogenists and molecular virologists would disagree with you, that is much more likely, even though we leave open all possibilities, it’s much more likely that this was a natural occurrence.

Third, you say we continue – “

Senator Rand Paul: “We’ve tested 80,000 animals and no animals have been found with COVID.”

Chairman Murray: “Senator Paul, the time is for Dr. Fauci to respond.”

Anthony Fauci: “And third, you made a statement just a moment ago that’s completely incorrect. Where you say we continue to support research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Senator Rand Paul: “You approved it in August of last year…”

Anthony Fauci: “No no, your statements say, quote, I wrote it down as you were writing, “You continue to support research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – “

Senator Rand Paul: “Your committee a month ago says you still trust the Chinese scientist and you still support the research over there. You said it a month ago in the committee.”

Chairman Murray: “Senator Paul, I have allowed Dr. Fauci to respond. You’ve had your time and I’m going to give him one more minute.”

Senator Rand Paul: “If he’s going to be dishonest he ought to be challenged.”

Chairman Murray: “Senator Paul, we will allow Dr. Fauci to respond after you’ve given accusations like that. Dr. Fauci.”

Anthony Fauci: “Well I don’t have any more to say except to say that as usual, and I’ve – I have a great deal of respect for this body of the Senate and it makes me very uncomfortable to have to say something, but he is egregiously incorrect in what he says. Thank you.”

Senator Rand Paul: “History will figure that out on its own.”

While Rand Paul seems to be on the right side of history, the complete negligence and willful ignorance on the part of the Senate committee as a whole to not continuously address the many, MANY adverse events of the COVID vaccines which have harmed MILLIONS of people, according to VAERS, and who instead continue to humor the narrative that the vaccine is the end all be all, is, quite frankly, ludicrous and criminal in and of itself. While they may allude to the information about the adverse events, no steps have been taken to fully investigate and analyze the hundreds of thousands of ACTUAL DATA provided.

There is enough substantial evidence declaring that the COVID vaccines are NOT safe nor effective, yet the ruse continues to go on.

Not to mention the push now to mass vaccinate millions of children, who were never at high risk from “COVID” to begin with… it is obvious that the vaccine effort should have been halted A LONG TIME AGO.

Keep in mind that it is common knowledge that the adverse events are under-reported by a factor of only 1-10% being reported for non-serious side effects, and a speculative estimation of 10-50% being reported for serious events.

There is also the suspicious account of the FDA presentation that flashed for a brief split-second showing a list of the “possible” side effects from the COVID vaccines to be on the lookout for:

Screenshot from: [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XTiL9rUpkg ] U.S. Food and Drug Administration@2:33:40

So to continue to ignore these facts and people’s plights from the devastating effects of the vaccines and prolonging this “pandemic” and the vaccine narrative is either complete obliviousness, to put it nicely, or downright complicity.

Again, this is not to speak of everyone in the Senate individually (unless it is in fact true…), but to point out the incredibly inane decisions of those ultimately in charge of these committees and giving their final verdict which has enabled these atrocious crimes against humanity to continue.

It is my opinion that a call for Anthony Fauci to resign does not do the damage that he has caused throughout the years (including his organizations: NIH/NIAID) justice, but instead efforts to make arrests of those initiating these crimes should be pursued as well.

Moving on to the second portion (from the same hearing), we see Rochelle Walensky responding to Senator Bill Cassidy’s inquiries to address natural immunity versus vaccine-induced immunity, and also her refusal to answer uncertainty in how many CDC employees are vaccinated.

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Dr. Walensky, couple things: as I walked in, I came in late, one of you – either you or Dr. Fauci – were saying that the reason that we’re not saying that natural immunity is protective as is a vaccine, even though there’s recent publication showing that 6-8 months out, 92% of those with natural immunity have T cells, B cells and antibodies that would be considered adequate to protect, and indeed B cell continues to climb, that we don’t have data.

Now in your response to Mr. Casey, you just mentioned that CDC has access to tens of thousands of EHRs [electronic health records]. And I’ve been told that HHS or CDC has access to patient identifiable data, as to who test positive. So I do that as a prologue.

If we don’t know that natural immunity confers protection against future infection, is because we’ve decided not to look. Because I’ve learned that there is a cohort of people that we know have been previously infected, we’ve got the bench research showing that the triad of antibodies, T cells and B cells are there, and that 92% of them are still there at 6 months out, so why don’t we – why have we not done the research showing that natural immunity confers protection against recurrent infection?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Yeah, thank you so much for allowing me to clarify this point, because I understand, I understand the question.

Um, first of all, let me just reiterate that our current stand after reviewing 96 papers in the scientific brief on this issue is that everyone who’s been previously infected should be vaccinated.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “But that’s not my question.”

Rochelle Walensky: “Right, agreed. So, so – and part of the challenge here is as you know the infection induced immunity and the biases associated with retrospectively looking at the data. Several of those papers that we reviewed for that brief have demonstrated that the kind of disease that you had at the time you had it matters.

Um, did you have disease a year and a half ago? Did you have – were you an older person? Were you – ?”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “May I stop you for a second?

We could do this prospectively, because you know who is actually, apparently I’m told, you’ve got patient identifiable data, and you would be able to say, okay, 6 months ago we’re going to start everybody infected within the last 6 months, and be able to follow their EHR, prospectively, to see this.

I mean, theoretically, CDC has the ability to do this right now.”

Rochelle Walensky: “Yet that too would have its own biases. So one of the things that we have demonstrated in the scientific brief is that asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic people, who might not present to their providers, might present to an urgent care clinic who might not be recorded in their own EHR, likely have less robust protection than those who’ve been severely affected.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “But that could be established prospectively if using the data that you have. And you could even say, if you had symptomatic infection, you don’t need to be vaccinated, we would consider you immune, you don’t have to be subjected to the mandate, but – “

Rochelle Walensky: “If we had data – if we had data that demonstrated a correlation of protection, Dr. Fauci already mentioned data that they’re working on to look at correlates of protection, not just in antibodies, but as you noted in T cell function as well. So if we were able to document a correlate of protection we absolutely could prospectively follow – “

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “But this paper that I’m reading from NIH, speaks that there is durable memory of the virus up to 8 months after infection in 95% of the people who recovered, including B cells, which continue to climb, and T cells and antibodies.

And I’m also saying you could do it clinically, because we have data that’s patient identifiable, that we could go back and look and see if they were exposed. They could be in a hot spot like Louisiana, where you know they’re being exposed, and then you would see. Not just by lab data, but empirically.

I can tell you, the American people intuitively understand this, and they feel a little bit like we’re being willfully blind to it.

I have limited time, let me just ask you something else. What percent of CDC employees are vaccinated?”

Rochelle Walensky: “We’re actively encouraging vaccination in all of our employees and doing a lot of education and outreach in order to get our agency fully vaccinated.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “And the – but the percent?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have that for you today.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “I’m told that 75… some north of 75% of CDC employees at headquarters are still working remotely. Is that correct?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Um, we are following regulations through HHS and the federal government.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “No, that’s not my question. I apologize to be rude, but – but I’m asking a very straightforward question.

I’ve been told that north of 75% of employees at CDC headquarters are working remotely. Is that correct?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Senator, I don’t actually know the number off the top of my head. So I’d have to – “

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “When you look down the hallway, are there empty desks? Are over 50% of the desk empty?”

Rochelle Walensky: “Senator, I don’t have the numbers off the top of my head. What I will tell you is that we’re working closely within HHS and the administration to follow the governmental rules for return to the workplace.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “There was a recent GAO report that shows, it was released in the last 2 weeks, that there’s been no coordinated response in the federal government to get people back into work.

Now if there’s any agency that – since we have teachers in Fulton county are back at work, that the caseload of COVID in Fulton county is about 88, at its peak it was 606, if what I’ve been told by someone who frankly kind of knows, that people in laboratories are not showing up, I have no clue how people, how laboratory workers who presumably are vaccinated, wearing PPE, would consider themselves eligible to stay at home.

I say this because, I just want to echo – we’ve got to lead by example in the federal government. If our public health agencies don’t have enough confidence in the immunization and the PPE to go back to work, fighting infectious diseases, there’s going to be a lot of undermining of a willingness to further fund public health.”

Rochelle Walensky: “We absolutely have our central labs back at work, conducting their essential research towards this response, and um, we are following the regulations and providing technical assistance and technical support to the federal government for return to work policies.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Uh, one more thing, I had – Angus King and I had sent a letter dated February the 25th, asking about genomic surveillance. We’ve still not received a response. You reference it in your earlier remarks. Both Senator King and I would appreciate a response.”

Rochelle Walensky: “We’ll get back to you. Thank you very much.”

I can sum up Walensky’s testimony in 5 short dialogues; paraphrasing, of course:

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Do you have data showing that natural immunity may offer better protection than vaccine immunity; and if not, then why?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

(By the way, I want to interject here by saying that Senator Bill Cassidy is absolutely correct when he posits that the reason that they “don’t have the data” is because they deliberately did not look for it. I also want to add the shady practice of the pharmaceutical companies breaking protocol and completely getting rid of the control group after only a few weeks into the COVID vaccine trial…)

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “What percentage of CDC employees are vaccinated?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “Are around 75% of CDC employees still working remotely from home?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy: “When you go into the CDC headquarters, how much percentage of desks have no workers there?”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time.”

Bill Cassidy: “Senator King and I asked you about “genomic sequence” back in February but have not received a response yet. We would appreciate a response.”

Rochelle Walensky: “I don’t have data on that at this time… but we’ll get back to you.”

This is the Director of the CDC, ladies and gentlemen. This is who is in charge of an organization that we are supposed to entrust our lives to in order to help get us through a “deadly pandemic”.

When she cannot say, in all honesty, that 100% of her CDC employees – who presumably have complete trust in the vaccines that she kept reiterating is the most important thing needed for our health – is fully vaccinated, while at the same time preaching that young children most definitely should get it, is EXTREMELY suspect and I am amazed at the continual indulgence of these hearings to not call out this hypocrisy for what it is. (Save for a small handful of Senators, that is.)

But at least we know that Rochelle Walensky hasn’t lied about how many of her employees have been vaccinated… yet.

Lastly, during the committee hearing, there were other Senators posing additional queries as to the questionable responses and suspicious nature of those testifying and their habits of skirting away from certain questions, which I want to mention here as well.

Senators Marshall, Burr and Moran (of the additional 3 testimonies that I watched, there may have been more with similar interests) have also raised legitimate concerns over the vaccines, mandates and debates about natural immunity versus vaccine efficacy – and was also met with a jumble of non-answers mixed with endless endorsements of the COVID vaccines.

Honestly, if I, an average American citizen, can see through their facade, then surely well-educated and seemingly experienced individuals in detecting deceit and malpractice would be able to determine the illegitimacy of these corrupt establishments and their cohorts as well.

So again I have to wonder at the incredibly unnecessary perpetuation of these fraudulent activities, instead of finally taking appropriate steps to shut down this criminal conspiracy.

To those Senators and other researchers who are genuinely seeking the truth and attempting to uncover the treasons, misconduct, and egregious scandal that has corrupted our governmental body and health/medical industries, my sincere gratitude and respect to you for standing strong and having enough integrity to stand up against these depravities.

God bless.

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by Edward Lich from Pixabay

I'd love to hear your thoughts: