I so wanted to start the year with some good news rather than more gloom and doom, like most of the data on my hard disks… And we’re damn lucky!

So yeah, Aaron Siri has just announced he won another case against the FDA, the judge correcting the previous abomination about the Pfizer data release. This is the announcement from his Substack:

INSTEAD OF FDA’S REQUESTED 500 PAGES PER MONTH, COURT ORDERS FDA TO PRODUCE PFIZER COVID-19 DATA AT RATE OF 55,000 PAGES PER MONTH!

A great win for transparency that removes a stranglehold “health” authorities have had on data independent scientists need to offer solutions and address serious issues with the vaccine program.

Aaron Siri1 hr ago267110

On behalf of a client, my firm requested that the FDA produce all the data submitted by Pfizer to license its Covid-19 vaccine.  The FDA asked the Court for permission to only be required to produce at a rate of 500 pages per month, which would have taken over 75 years to produce all the documents. 

I am pleased to report that a federal judge soundly rejected the FDA’s request and ordered the FDA to produce all the data at a clip of 55,000 pages per month!

This is a great win for transparency and removes one of the strangleholds federal “health” authorities have had on the data needed for independent scientists to offer solutions and address serious issues with the current vaccine program – issues which include waning immunity, variants evading vaccine immunity, and, as the CDC has confirmed, that the vaccines do not prevent transmission.

No person should ever be coerced to engage in an unwanted medical procedure.  And while it is bad enough the government violated this basic liberty right by mandating the Covid-19 vaccine, the government also wanted to hide the data by waiting to fully produce what it relied upon to license this product until almost every American alive today is dead.  That form of governance is destructive to liberty and antithetical to the openness required in a democratic society. 

In ordering the release of the documents in a timely manner, the Judge recognized that the release of this data is of paramount public importance and should be one of the FDA’s highest priorities.  He then aptly quoted James Madison as saying a “popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy” and John F. Kennedy as explaining that a “nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” 

The following is the full text of the Judge’s order, a copy of which is also available here.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PHMPT, Plaintiff v. FDA, Defendant, No. 4:21-cv-1058-P

ORDER

This case involves the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Specifically, at issue is Plaintiff’s FOIA request seeking “[a]ll data and information for the Pfizer Vaccine enumerated in 21 C.F.R. § 601.51(e) with the exception of publicly available reports on the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System” from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). See ECF No. 1. As has become standard, the Parties failed to agree to a mutually acceptable production schedule; instead, they submitted dueling production schedules for this Court’s consideration. Accordingly, the Court held a conference with the Parties to determine an appropriate production schedule.[1] See ECF Nos. 21, 34.

“Open government is fundamentally an American issue” – it is neither a Republican nor a Democrat issue.[2] As James Madison wrote, “[a] popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”[3] John F. Kennedy likewise recognized that “a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”[4] And, particularly appropriate in this case, John McCain (correctly) noted that “[e]xcessive administrative secrecy . . . feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public’s confidence in the government.”[5]

Echoing these sentiments, “[t]he basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, [which is] vital to the functioning of a democratic society.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1977). “FOIA was [therefore] enacted to ‘pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.’” Batton v. Evers, 598 F.3d 169, 175 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976)). And “Congress has long recognized that ‘information is often useful only if it is timely’ and that, therefore ‘excessive delay by the agency in its response is often tantamount to denial.’” Open Soc’y Just. Initiative v. CIA, 399 F. Supp. 3d 161, 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting H.R. REP. NO. 93-876, at 6271 (1974)). When needed, a court “may use its equitable powers to require an agency to process documents according to a court-imposed timeline.” Clemente v. FBI, 71 F. Supp. 3d 262, 269 (D.D.C. 2014).

Here, the Court recognizes the “unduly burdensome” challenges that this FOIA request may present to the FDA. See generally ECF Nos. 23, 30, 34. But, as expressed at the scheduling conference, there may not be a “more important issue at the Food and Drug Administration . . . than the pandemic, the Pfizer vaccine, getting every American vaccinated, [and] making sure that the American public is assured that this was not [] rush[ed] on behalf of the United States . . . .” ECF No. 34 at 46. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this FOIA request is of paramount public importance.

“[S]tale information is of little value.” Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The Court, agreeing with this truism, therefore concludes that the expeditious completion of Plaintiff’s request is not only practicable, but necessary. See Bloomberg, L.P. v. FDA, 500 F. Supp. 2d 371, 378 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2007) (“[I]t is the compelling need for such public understanding that drives the urgency of the request.”). To that end, the Court further concludes that the production rate, as detailed below, appropriately balances the need for unprecedented urgency in processing this request with the FDA’s concerns regarding the burdens of production. See Halpern v. FBI, 181 F.3d 279, 284–85 (2nd Cir. 1991) (“[FOIA] emphasizes a preference for the fullest possible agency disclosure of such information consistent with a responsible balancing of competing concerns . . . .”).

Accordingly, having considered the Parties’ arguments, filings in support, and the applicable law, the Court ORDERS that:

1. The FDA shall produce the “more than 12,000 pages” articulated in its own proposal, see ECF No. 29 at 24, on or before January 31, 2022.

2. The FDA shall produce the remaining documents at a rate of 55,000 pages every 30 days, with the first production being due on or before March 1, 2022, until production is complete.

3. To the extent the FDA asserts any privilege, exemption, or exclusion as to any responsive record or portion thereof, FDA shall, concurrent with each production required by this Order, produce a redacted version of the record, redacting only those portions as to which privilege, exemption, or exclusion is asserted.

4. The Parties shall submit a Joint Status Report detailing the progress of the rolling production by April 1, 2022, and every 90 days thereafter.[6]

SO ORDERED on this 6th day of January, 2022.


[1] Surprisingly, the FDA did not send an agency representative to the scheduling conference.

[2] 151 CONG. REC. S1521 (daily ed. Feb. 16, 2005) (statement of Sen. John Cornyn).

[3] Letter from James Madison to W.T. Barry (August 4, 1822), in 9 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 103 (S. Hunt ed., 1910).

[4] John F. Kennedy, Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America (Feb. 26, 1962).

[5] America After 9/11: Freedom Preserved or Freedom Lost?: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 302 (2003).

[6] Although the Court does not decide whether the FDA correctly denied Plaintiff’s request for expedited processing, the issue is not moot. Should the Parties seek to file motions for summary judgment, the Court will take up the issue then.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Best part: the admission comes from a court trial that has recently been concluded, then put a lid on. I discovered this accidentally, while following other leads.

Please contemplate this most spectacular paragraph and then I’ll give you all the background info you need:

Regarding factual material within the document, the court finds that “[t]he CDC does not . . . justify its withholding based on inextricable intertwining of facts and opinions.”  “Rather, it defends the withholding because the facts about COVID-19 were changing frequently, and therefore any facts in the Media Strategy are ‘no more than . . . hypotheses advanced but later revised or rejected altogether.'”  “The CDC states that releasing such ‘seemingly factual statements’ would ’cause damage both to the agency – by contradicting and/or undercutting the more reliable information that it ultimately released – and to the public, by creating confusion and potentially sowing mistrust in the guidance provided by the CDC and other Federal agencies.'”  The court finds that “Defendants cite no law for the validity of such a justification under FOIA . . . and the Court is aware of none.”   Moreover, the deliberative process privilege focuses on whether disclosure would ‘expose an agency’s decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency’s ability to perform its functions.‘”  “The CDC does not argue that disclosure of the facts would chill the CDC’s internal discussion.”  “Therefore, the Court rejects the agency’s justification for withholding the factual portions of the document.”

US DoJ, Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. CDC, No. 20-2761, 2021 WL 4253299 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2021) (Torres, J.)

So this is part of the court ruling for the following case, filed early 2020, the funniest boomerang throw in a while:

The reason I call it a “boomerang throw” is because the case was obviously a politicized attack on Trump admin’s alleged dictatorial oversight on science. They meant to show CDC wants to do better and OrangeManBad is keeping them on a leash, preventing transparency.
But the solution to it blew up in Biden’s lap, exposing more of CDC’s foul plays when they least needed another public image blow.
I mean, could’ve blown up, if anyone made a fuss about this.

Below is how Deep State University aka Harvard presented the case in April 2020:

CDC Sued to Disclose Restrictions on Scientists’ Right to Speak

By Adam Toobin – Edited by Genie Gorbonosov

April 16, 2020

<< Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Knight Institute v. CDC (S.D.N.Y Apr. 2, 2020) (No. 20-2761), complaint hosted by the Knight Institute.

Demanding the Trump Administration make public any restrictions on when employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may speak to the public or the press, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University is suing to force compliance with an unanswered Freedom of Information Act request they filed on March 19.

The complaint follows an extended controversy over whether and to what extent governments may restrict public employees from speaking to the press on their personal views. Laden with free speech concerns, the issue demands heightened urgency in the context of a worldwide pandemic that has killed tens of thousands and sparked fierce debate about the role of political leaders and scientists in responding to the crisis.

Motivating the Knight Institute’s concern in this instance is a record of severe restrictions on the rights of government scientists to speak freely to the press. In 2017, Axios published an email from Jeffrey Lancashire, a public affairs officer, to the National Center for Health Statistics, announcing that for every employee of the CDC “any and all correspondence with any member of the news media, regardless of the nature of the inquiry, must be cleared through CDC’s Atlanta Communications Office.”

This policy may exacerbate fears that the White House has politicized the nation’s response to the pandemic and inhibited the voicing of alternate views that could shed light on the extent of the crisis, according to the Knight Institute’s complaint.

“According to recent news stories, scientists and health officials at the CDC must now coordinate with the Office of Vice President Mike Pence before speaking with members of the press or public about the pandemic,” the complaint reads. “These stories have raised concerns that public health experts who know most about the risks to the public are not being permitted to speak candidly and that the information the government is now conveying may be incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading.”

This lawsuit follows recent litigation that has raised questions about the current constitutional status of rights of public employees to speak to the press without official oversight. In 2006, the Supreme Court held in Garcetti v. Ceballos that speech by public employees should only receive First Amendment protection when they are communicating in their capacity as private individuals. However, in the 2014 case of Lane v. Franks, the Court held that “the mere fact that a citizen’s speech concerns information acquired by virtue of his public employment does not transform that speech into employee—rather than citizen—speech.”

Rather than facing doctrinal hurdles in overturning government restrictions on the right of public employees to speak, a recent law review article by Frank LoMonte, head of the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, identifies the fact that public employees have had to put their careers and employment relationship in jeopardy in order to bring suit. LoMonte suggests that journalists and news organizations should have standing to challenge overbroad restrictions on the right of public employees to speak.

While still untested, the prospect suggests a new line of attack on the type of rules the CDC may be enforcing against its employees. The Knight Institute’s lawsuit may then be seen as the first step in raising a more fundamental question about the constitutionality of these restrictions.

On the alternative side, public health officials have also emphasized the importance of clear and trustworthy information reaching the public during a period of such acute national and international challenges. The spread of misinformation online has drawn particular concern and forced some social media platforms to take unprecedented steps to control what their users can see and share, including partnering with organizations like the CDC and the World Health Organization to verify the information blitzing around their sites. Multiple conflicting messages from government officials — not bound by tight central controls — could contribute to the public’s confusion.

Ultimately, the Knight Institute’s lawsuit focuses on a much more narrow question: Whether the government should be permitted to keep secret its rules for when government scientists may speak publicly. As the coronavirus pandemic enters a new month, long since having banished facets of everyday life once taken for granted, the issue takes on the weight of all those who worry everyday about the information they receive from the government and the media.>>

Fantastic presentation, Harvard!
Now, you know what’s way more stunning? Let’s have a look at the full court decision on this!

Friday, September 17, 2021

Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. CDC, No. 20-2761, 2021 WL 4253299 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2021) (Torres, J.)



Re:  Request for certain records concerning coronavirus or Coronavirus Task Force, as well as records concerning communication with news media and public policies

Disposition:  Denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

  • Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  “The Court concludes that the CDC’s search for documents responsive to requests one and two was not reasonably likely to uncover all responsive documents.”  First, the court finds that “the CDC improperly narrowed the scope of [its] search, and shall reconduct it in light of this order.”  “Here, the plain language of the requests indicate that they encompass more than the CDC’s interpretation.”  “Requests one and two seek records ‘relating to’ policies and procedures, and so are broader than merely the policies themselves.”  Responding to plaintiff’s argument, the court finds that “courts have rejected the idea that including a specific request invalidates an overlapping broader request.”  Second, the court finds that “‘FOIA requests are not a game of Battleship.'”  “‘The requester should not have to score a direct hit on the records sought based on the precise phrasing of his request.'”  The court explains that “an agency must search for synonyms or common variants of a term used in the request that are likely to be used in responsive documents, unless it can reasonably justify declining to use them.”  “[T]he agency justifies its limitation of search terms as a means of ‘strik[ing] a balance between fully and completely capturing emails dealing with the subject matter of Plaintiff’s requests and eliminating the large number of nonresponsive emails captured by the first search.'”  “But, an agency’s duty under FOIA is not to strike such a balance; it is to conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents, unless such a search would be an undue burden.”  Additionally, the court finds that “Plaintiff correctly observes that the agency’s affidavit does not give sufficient detail about how the search was conducted.”  “[I]t does not specify how Boolean searches were used:  for instance, if it searched for the two-word terms like ‘covid communication’ in quotes (producing only documents containing those two words in sequence), or not (producing documents with either one of those words anywhere in the document).”  “Without such detail, the Court cannot conclude that the agency demonstrated that the search terms were reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents.”  Finally, the court finds that “CDC has given no reason it did not search the inboxes of the individuals identified by Plaintiff, which Plaintiff reasonably contends may contain responsive documents.”  “Therefore, it was unreasonable of the CDC to omit those individuals likely to have responsive documents from the search.”  Of specific note, the court finds that “Defendants . . . argue that the CDC’s search was reasonable despite the omission of [one individual], because the produced records demonstrate that her supervisor . . . ‘was included in all correspondence to or from [the omitted individual] concerning items 1 and 2 of Plaintiff’s request.'”  “However, this logic does not hold:  [the supervisor’s] inclusion on the emails uncovered by a search of her email inbox does not mean that [the omitted individual] did not send or receive other responsive emails which did not include [her supervisor].”  “Therefore, it is reasonably likely that [the omitted individual] has other, undiscovered responsive documents, and must be included in a reasonable search.”
     
  • Exemption 5, Other Privileges:  The court holds that “Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that the presidential communications privilege covers [two documents], given the scope of dissemination of those documents.”  The court relates that the two documents are “a February 25, 2020 email authored by . . . President Donald J. Trump’s then-acting White House Chief of Staff[] and sent to ‘Senior Government Officials,’ described as a ‘[p]roposed coordinated media communication strategy for COVID-19 with designated speakers for various issues/topics,'” and “a February 25 and 27, 2020 email chain involving [the then-acting White House Chief of Staff], described as an ‘[u]pdate and elaboration of proposed coordinated media communication strategy for COVID-19.'”  The court relates that “Plaintiff no longer disputes that these documents were properly authored by a member of the President’s staff.”  “However, Plaintiff disputes whether these documents were kept sufficiently confidential for the privilege to apply.”  The court finds that “[d]isclosure of the documents would not prevent the President from operating effectively.”  “The media strategy of an executive agency is not a quintessential presidential power like the removal power; it is and was performed without presidential input.”  “Nor would disclosing the documents undermine future presidential decision-making; as discussed below, the policies appear to have been forward-looking plans to coordinate strategy.”  “And finally, because the policies were distributed to more than just the President’s closest advisors, his ability to communicate his final decisions privately was not implicated.”  “Moreover, the documents were not treated as confidential for purposes of the privilege.”  “The documents were also distributed throughout the Executive Branch, including to individuals whom Defendants have not established are covered by this privilege.”  “Though Defendants state that the majority of the recipients were in the EOP, not all individuals in the EOP are within the narrow circle of the presidential communications privilege.”  “Finally, the documents appear to have been distributed to some of the recipients for a non-advisory purpose.”
     
  • Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege & Other Considerations: The court denies defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding “a ’02/25 – 02/26/2020 Division of Global Migration and Quarantine email chain . . .’ and the information withheld within them[,] [specifically,] ‘[d]iscussion of how to apply 02/25/2020 EOP email to Senior Government Officials.'”  The court finds that that material consists of “discussions of how to apply a binding policy, rather than conferring about developing that policy.”  “Therefore, any discussion of its application was post-decisional, and outside the scope of the privilege.”  The court relates that “Defendants . . . argue that [some of that material] was not an operative policy because on [a later date], a new email was sent, erasing the [earlier] framework.”  “However, although the Document 9 policy may have been temporaru, it is still a final decision while in effect.”  “In addition, the CDC has not sufficiently articulated a harm associated with disclosing [that material].”  “Defendants merely assert that disclosure of some of the documents withheld under the deliberative process privilege ‘could cause harm by chilling future free exchange of ideas and opinions by agency leadership on similarly sensitive matters.'”  “[T]his assertion is not specific enough to meet the FOIA requirements.”
     
  • Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege & Litigation Considerations, “Reasonably Segregable” Requrements: Separately, the court considers a “a number of iterations of a document titled ‘CDC Communication and Media Strategy for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Response.'”  The court relates that “the CDC avers that [one of these iterations, the only one plaintiff still challenges,] was ‘revised and circulated to help frame ongoing deliberative discussions within CDC for anticipated consideration by CDC decisionmakers,’ but that no Media Strategy was ultimately decided upon.”  “Plaintiff has identified a number of features of [the document] that suggest it is, at least, the closest to final version of the Media Strategy produced.”  Additionally, the court notes that “[p]roduced documents discussing the Media Strategy also indicate that the goal was ‘to finalize the first iteration of this strategy document,’ . . . which indicates that the CDC intended to create an operative version, even if that version was to be updated.”  Also, the court finds that “[t]he CDC also does not describe, specifically for Document 12, the author, its recipient, or those individuals’ relationships to each other and the decision-making process, details which have been considered ‘critical’ to a court’s analysis under the deliberative process privilege.”  The court also relates that “Plaintiff argues that [the document] should not be withheld because it is a ‘messaging’ document.”  “Though courts in this district are split over how to handle messaging documents, . . . the Court agrees that when considering documents ‘about how the agency should communicate its policies to people outside the agency,’ it must focus on ‘whether the drafts or communications reflect deliberations about what “message” should be delivered to the public about an already-decided policy decision, or whether the communications are of a nature that they would reveal the deliberative process underlying a not-yet-finalized policy decision.'”  “On this record, the Court cannot determine if [the document at issue] is merely articulating how to discuss agency policy, or if it is itself an expression of the CDC’s ‘essential policymaking role.'”  “Accordingly, the Court cannot yet decide whether [this document] falls into the deliberative process privilege.”

    Regarding factual material within the document, the court finds that “[t]he CDC does not . . . justify its withholding based on inextricable intertwining of facts and opinions.”  “Rather, it defends the withholding because the facts about COVID-19 were changing frequently, and therefore any facts in the Media Strategy are ‘no more than . . . hypotheses advanced but later revised or rejected altogether.'”  “The CDC states that releasing such ‘seemingly factual statements’ would ’cause damage both to the agency – by contradicting and/or undercutting the more reliable information that it ultimately released – and to the public, by creating confusion and potentially sowing mistrust in the guidance provided by the CDC and other Federal agencies.'”  The court finds that “Defendants cite no law for the validity of such a justification under FOIA . . . and the Court is aware of none.”   Moreover, the deliberative process privilege focuses on whether disclosure would ‘expose an agency’s decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency’s ability to perform its functions.'”  “The CDC does not argue that disclosure of the facts would chill the CDC’s internal discussion.”  “Therefore, the Court rejects the agency’s justification for withholding the factual portions of the document.”

Updated November 4, 2021

You could start the Comedy Central Roast of CDC with that material.
Hey, Rand Paul, where art thou?


“Science will win”.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

BREAKING! 2ND BATCH OF FAUCI E-MAILS: INVITE TO ROCKEFELLER’S TRILATERAL COMMISSION

There’s no way the intelligence communities from at least 4-5 countries didn’t know of this. Not acting on it is participating in it.

SOURCE (PDF) – SEEK PAGE 2286

https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561-leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails

This is an official FOIA release obtained by Jason Leopold, Buzzfeed contributor. His article on this is below, but first I want to raise an eyebrow, because the sender of the e-mail is this semi-notorious pro-Ivermectin militant who you wouldn’t expect to have this conversation with Fauci, would you? But there he is.

LATER UPDATES:

FAUCI PROPOSED ZUCKERBERG’S BIOTECH FIRM TO INVESTIGATE THE SARS-COV-2 ORIGINS. BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THERE ‘ARE PAYING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE WUHAN STRAIN’. IN FEBRUARY 2020!

Digging through Fauci’s e-mails is bad for your teeth and liver, I should stop

Page 3187

Apparently, this needs explained:
The e-mail above single-handedly proves the lab-leak suspicions are as old and based as the virus.

The guy who sent the e-mail above, later published this:

A second statement which had enormous influence in shaping public attitudes was a letter (in other words an opinion piece, not a scientific article) published on March 17, 2020, in the journal Nature Medicine. Its authors were a group of virologists led by Kristian G. Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute. “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the five virologists declared in the second paragraph of their letter. – The Wire


Here’s the Buzzfeed report, mostly useless trash not worth your time, but for some context:

Anthony Fauci’s Emails Reveal The Pressure That Fell On One Man

Thousands of pages of communications obtained by BuzzFeed News show how Fauci tried to keep Americans calm and develop an effective strategy despite conflicts with the Trump administration. Natalie Bettendorf BuzzFeed Contributor Jason Leopold BuzzFeed News Reporter

Posted on June 1, 2021, at 1:59 p.m. ET

Anthony Fauci, wearing a face mask, looks down at his cellphone in his hands

The woman’s email arrived in Anthony Fauci’s inbox on Feb. 28, 2020, with a one-word subject line: “URGENT.”

The coronavirus crisis was still in its early stages, and Fauci, the US government’s top infectious disease scientist, was already under tremendous pressure, both because of the health threat facing the country and the political climate fostered by the Trump administration.

“I understand Vice President Pence has ordered you to not inform the public about Coronavirus without approval. This is quite terrifying, especially since Trump has already shown his desire to spread false or incomplete information about this public health crisis,” the woman wrote.

She had tracked down Fauci’s email, which is not easily accessible on government websites, because she had a pressing question: “I’m planning to fly domestically TOMORROW [REDACTED]. Is it safe??”

Of course, Fauci had urgent matters of his own to attend to, but he replied to the stranger anyway the next day. “There is much misinformation,” he wrote back. “I actually have not been muzzled at all by the Vice President. And BTW, it is safe to fly domestically [REDACTED].”

More than 3,200 pages of emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by BuzzFeed News — covering the period from January to June 2020 — provide a rare glimpse into how Fauci approached his job during the biggest health crisis of the last century, showing him dealing directly with the public, health officials, reporters, and even celebrities. (The Washington Post also received more than 800 pages of emails and published a story about them on Monday.)

The emails reviewed by BuzzFeed News reveal him sparring over an antiviral drug with Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama administration health adviser, fielding questions about vaccines, and receiving an update from Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook’s plans for a coronavirus “information hub.” Zuckerberg also asked whether the social media company could provide resources to accelerate vaccine testing. And Fauci even responded to an offer from actor Morgan Fairchild to use her Twitter account on his behalf.

An email from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to Anthony Fauci
Fauci discusses his response to Zuckerberg in an email to another NIAID official

“It would be great if you could tweet to your many Twitter followers,” he responded to Fairchild. “The American public should not be frightened, but should be prepared to mitigate an outbreak in this country by measures including social distancing, teleworking, temporary closure of schools, etc.”

An email from Morgan Fairchild to Anthony Fauci

The emails show Fauci received a flurry of correspondence about the theory that coronavirus leaked from a lab in Wuhan. One such email sent to Fauci on April 16, 2020 by Francis Collins, the director of the National Institute of Health, under the subject line “conspiracy gains momentum” contained a link to a news story highlighting a Fox News report that said the allegation had merit. Fauci’s response to Collins is entirely blacked out.

The records also lay bare Fauci’s ambivalence toward his newfound celebrity status but also his embrace of a documentary crew who would tell his story. Additionally, the emails hint at the personal toll this past year has taken on him. In one email sent on Feb. 18, weeks before COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic, he wrote that he had only been able to see his wife for 45 minutes in the previous 10 days.

Fauci, who has been director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, declined to comment for this story.

Some of the emails were reviewed by the Trump White House before being turned over to BuzzFeed News. They represent just a portion of what was requested, and they are filled with redactions, making them an incomplete record of the time period and Fauci’s correspondence. Additional tranches are expected to be released in the coming months.

However, the emails do give a sense of the type of communicator Fauci is: courteous, low-key, and empathetic. He politely interacts with the office assistants who help him with his correspondence, and he sweats over the proper way to let people down.

When a White House fellow and physician emails Fauci and offers to team up to write an opinion piece on the coronavirus and “unite the nation,” the NIAID director asks a colleague, “How do we nicely say no to this person?”

And when health professionals write him with harsh criticism of Trump’s handling of the pandemic, he doesn’t take the bait. Instead, he replies with a “thank you.”

An email from Dr. Fauci asking "How do we nicely say no to this person?"

His tone is a mix of friendly and formal, employing phrases like “let us discuss,” “many thanks,” and — in rare displays of displeasure — a delicate “yikes!” He signs off as “Tony.”

Even though he tends to sidestep controversy, Fauci does defend his decisions and push back.

In March 2020, Fauci and a few other colleagues received an email from Gregg Gonsalves, a prominent Yale School of Public Health epidemiologist, urging the NIAID director and his team to act promptly on the virus. The subject line was “We Are Desperate for Advice.”

“For those I know, I don’t doubt your commitment to public service,” Gonsalves wrote. “But time is running out. We need vocally, unequivocal leadership now, that offers real guidance to communities about what to do, what might happen next.”

An email from Gregg Gonsalves to Fauci and other officials at the CDC, NIAID, and NIH

Fauci clearly resented any implication that his health team’s response was being shaped by the political values of the Trump administration, and he responded curtly three hours later.

“Gregg: I am surprised you included me in your note,” he wrote. “I genuflect to no one but science and always, always speak my mind when it comes to public health. I have consistently corrected misstatements by others and will continue to do so.”

Fauci's response to Gonsalves
A followup email from Gonsalves

Fauci, 80, has tackled the world’s most difficult health crises and infectious diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, Ebola, and Zika, earning respect in his field and the trust of many Americans. As the COVID-19 crisis deepened, his inbox filled with queries from people seeking guidance, solace, or morsels of medical advice.

On March 4, under the subject line “A humble request for your wisdom,” a woman wrote to Fauci and asked whether a person inoculated against pneumonia would be protected against COVID-19.

One hour later, at 9:45 p.m. on a Wednesday, Fauci replied that complications from COVID-19 are “heavily skewed” toward people who are older or have underlying conditions. He went into a lengthy explanation:

“Most of the pneumonias are pure viral pneumonia and so this vaccination will not help that,” he wrote. “However, on the chance that you have a pure viral pneumonia that gets secondarily complicated by a bacterial pneumonia (pneumococcal) the vaccine would be beneficial.

“If you are 65 years of age or older, you should get pneumonvax23 anyway regardless of the risk of coronavirus infection. Thanks, Tony.”

Five minutes later, the woman wrote back, “Oh my god. … I honestly never expected you to reply and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for being so generous!”

Some writers emailed mainly to vent. Among them: a Florida infectious disease specialist who was upset that some Americans were not taking proper precautions.

“I am putting my life on the line so folks can go pump iron, drink beer, have a burger and get a tan,” Doug Brust emailed Fauci on March 18.

“The band is playing on. Again,” Brust wrote, a reference to one of the most famous books of the AIDS epidemic, And the Band Played On, which exposed the hapless efforts of the government and the public medical establishment to address the health crisis.

Fauci's reply to Doug Brust

And reporters, of course, reached out with questions for the doctor considered the country’s foremost expert. One email exchange, however, shows how even Fauci couldn’t see all that was coming.

Just a day after the first reported COVID-19 death in the United States, the managing editor of ABC News’ medical unit emailed Fauci and asked him if he agreed with what a source at the Department of Homeland Security told him: that epidemiology models showed that 98 million people could be infected with COVID-19 and deaths from the virus could reach 500,000.

“That seems exceptionally high,” Fauci responded.

His guidance was not always welcomed by his own bosses at the White House. He faced a wide range of harassment, including angry tweets from Trump that questioned his expertise.

Those conflicts also get referenced in the emails. In April, a top Chinese health official emailed Fauci about vaccines. As part of that thread, the official expressed concern about him “being attacked by some people.”

“Thank you for your kind note. All is well despite some crazy people in this world,” Fauci replied.

Even as he gained enemies and roused critics, many of the emails also reflect his growing stature around the world.

“Dear — highly respected — Dr. Fauci,” a doctor from Austria writes in bolded text. “Why do I try to childishly support a respected expert and personally highly honored Gentleman like you — Dr. Fauxi? Because for me — it is heartbreaking and unbelievably disturbing, what was and is going on of the last 4 months in the USA.”

He goes on to lay out a strategy for nations to cope with the devastating effects of the pandemic.

“Not a crazy note. Please respond on my behalf,” Fauci writes to a staff member.

On May 5, 2020, Mary Harris, an NIAID employee, wrote: “I am grateful to say my Director is Dr. Anthony Fauci and share with my family, friends, and church that if you said it, it’s gospel.”

Along the way, the scientist was becoming a celebrity. Just a couple of months into the pandemic, T-shirts, bobbleheads, socks, and even prayer candles with his face plastered on them were being sold. Fauci’s emails show he was clearly uncomfortable with the attention.

“Click on the ‘Cuomo Crush’ and ‘Fauci Fever’ link below. It will blow your mind. Our society is really totally nuts,” Fauci wrote in an April 8, 2020, email he forwarded to undisclosed recipients after he received a Google alert about news stories mentioning his name.

The previous month, a colleague had emailed Fauci a Washington Post article headlined “Fauci Socks, Fauci Doughnuts, Fauci Fan Art: The Coronavirus Experts Attract a Cult Following.” The top of the article tells the story of a Rochester, New York, shop that had sold out of donuts with Fauci’s face on them.

“Truly surrealistic,” Fauci wrote. “Hopefully this all stops soon.” Later, he added: “It is not at all pleasant, that is for sure.”

But it didn’t stop, and, at times, Fauci actually couldn’t help but get a kick out of it, including when Brad Pitt played him on Saturday Night Live.

“One reviewer of the SNL show said that Pitt looked ‘exactly like me.’ That statement made my year, ” Fauci wrote to a colleague.

The emails also reveal behind-the-scenes negotiations over a documentary about Fauci’s work. He first sent a note to his team about the project on April 12, a month after the World Health Organization had declared the coronavirus a pandemic.

“Let us discuss this tomorrow before we do anything. No one has any ‘exclusives’ on anything about me,” he wrote to his team.

Still, there is little in his correspondence that strays from the central issues: the pandemic and how best to save lives. His exchanges with Ezekiel Emanuel, the former Obama health adviser, reflect the high stakes.

Emanuel, an oncologist, bioethicist, and vice provost of the University of Pennsylvania, sent Fauci an email on Feb. 25, 2020, asking for an updated assessment of the virus and noting that he was having a “hard time seeing this as serious as everyone else.”

“Am I blind? Yes very transmissible but low mortality like flu in many ways – the elderly, those with comorbidities, and total impact is likely to be less than flu,” Emanuel wrote.

Later, in April, Emanuel sent Fauci an email saying he was “perplexed” by his “seeming strong endorsement” of the antiviral drug remdesivir to treat COVID-19.

“Was it just a bit forced?” Emanuel asked. “My reading was the data was weak and in normal times for normal disease it is not enough to approve. And very unlikely to really impact COVID-19 disease pattern–regardless of supply issues.”

Fauci countered: “I did not ‘strongly’ endorse it. I specifically said it was not a knockout drug and was only a baby step in the direction of developing more and better drugs. I said that it was important because it proved in a well-powered, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that one can suppress the virus enough to see a clinical effect, as modest as the effect was. I do not think I forced anything.”

The next day, Emanuel sent another email, apologizing for misinterpreting Fauci’s comments about the drug and inviting him over for dinner “on the porch.”

“You are a national — international — treasure. And we are depending on your sanity and smarts.”

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

You may have heard of the famous Brain Mapping initiative by US Government / Pentagon / Darpa. It’s been widely publicized as a version of the Human Genome project, meant to bring countless health benefits. But both are proving lately to be falsely advertised.

2013

In 2018, an US journalist made a FOIA application regarding Antifa / BLM and received a surprise bonus, which went semi-viral and faded soon.
I’m digging it up again for a new autopsy required in the light of the latest revelations regarding DARPA, The Brain Initiative and others. If you’re new to this site, I can’t recommend enough using the search engine to find our articles on DARPA, biohacking and mRNA technology.

And here’s the original 2018 article, that makes much more sense when you have the knowledge I pointed at just before.

Washington State Fusion Center accidentally releases records on remote mind control


Written by Curtis Waltman for Muckrock Magazine, April 18, 2018

As part of a request for records on Antifa and white supremacist groups, WSFC inadvertently bundles in “EM effects on human body.zip”

When you send thousands of FOIA requests, you are bound to get some very weird responses from time to time. Recently, we here at MuckRock had one of our most bizarre gets yet – Washington State Fusion Center’s accidental release of records on the effects of remote mind control.

As part of my ongoing project looking at fusion centers’ investigations into Antifa and various white supremacist groups, I filed a request with the WSFC. I got back many standard documents in response, including emails, intelligence briefings and bulletins, reposts from other fusion centers – and then there was one file titled “EM effects on human body.zip.”

Hmmm. What could that be? What does EM stand for and what is it doing to the human body? So I opened it up and took a look:

When I first saw this on Internet I wasn’t impressed much either, seemed orphan. Now you have the context.

Hell yeah, dude.

EM stands for electromagnetic. What you are looking at here is “psycho-electronic” weapons that purportedly use electromagnetism to do a wide variety of horrible things to people, such as reading or writing your mind, causing intense pain, “rigor mortis,” or most heinous of all, itching.

Now to be clear, the presence of these records (which were not created by the fusion center, and are not government documents) should not be seen as evidence that DHS possesses these devices, or even that such devices actually exist. Which is kind of unfortunate because “microwave hearing” is a pretty cool line of technobabble to say out loud.

You know what’s even cooler? “Remote Brain Mapping.” It is insanely cool to say. Go ahead. Say it. Remote. Brain. Mapping.

Just check the detail on these slides too. The black helicopter shooting off its psychotronic weapons, mapping your brain, broadcasting your thoughts back to some fusion center. I wish their example of “ELF Brain stimulation” was a little clearer though.

It’s difficult to source exactly where these images come from, but it’s obviously not government material. One seems to come from a person named “Supratik Saha,” who is identified as a software engineer, the brain mapping slide has no sourcing, and the image of the body being assaulted by psychotronic weapons is sourced from raven1.net, who apparently didn’t renew their domain.

It’s entirely unclear how this ended up in this release. It could have been meant for another release, it could have been gathered for an upcoming WSFC report, or it could even be from the personal files of an intelligence officer that somehow got mixed up in the release. A call to the WSFC went unreturned as of press time, so until we hear back, their presence remains a mystery.

We’ll keep you updated once we hear back, and you can download the files yourself on the request page. – Muckrock Magazine

I don’t know why it’s so hard for the author to link mind control to security threats control, which is in government’s job description as it is in our personal agenda, but then again, microwave hearing is “technobabble” to him.

I find it much more startling that REMOTE brain mapping is a thing!

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

We gave up on our profit shares from masks, if you want to help us, please use the donation button!
We think frequent mask use, even short term use can be bad for you, but if you have no way around them, at least send a message of consciousness.
Get it here!