Dr. Anthony Fauci was secretly escorted into CIA headquarters to “influence” the investigation on COVID-19 origins, according to Rep. Brad Wenstrup, chairman of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, which opened a new investigation and requested related documents from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Dr. Anthony Fauci visited CIA headquarters to “influence” its COVID-19 origins investigation, according to allegations disclosed Tuesday by Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio).

Wenstrup, in a letter to Inspector General Christi Grimm at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), said he had information suggesting Fauci was “escorted” into CIA headquarters “without a record of entry.”

Wenstrup is chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. A subcommittee spokesperson told the Daily Mail the committee “has received information from multiple sources across multiple agencies regarding Dr. Fauci’s movements to and from the CIA.”

Neither Wenstrup nor any subcommittee member or spokesperson identified specific date(s) Fauci is alleged to have visited the agency.

Tuesday’s press release from the Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability, which is overseeing the subcommittee’s investigation, called attention to allegations by six CIA whistleblowers that they received “significant financial incentives” to change their stance that the SARS-CoV-2 virus may have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China.

In light of evidence uncovered earlier this year establishing Fauci’s involvement in the “Proximal Origin” paper claiming to disprove the lab leak theory, the subcommittee said it found Fauci’s presence at the CIA “questionable,” alleging it “lends credence to heightened concerns about the promotion of a false COVID-19 origins narrative by multiple federal government agencies.”

Wenstrup asked Grimm to send the subcommittee by no later than Oct. 10 any documents and communications related to Fauci’s movements between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2022, into any facilities owned, operated or occupied by the CIA.

Wenstrup also requested the pay and bonus history of all past and current members of HHS’ “COVID Discovery Team(s)” and information about staff and contractors at HHS, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the U.S. Marshals Service who may have been involved.

“Our goal is to ensure the scientific investigative process regarding the origins of COVID-19 was fair, impartial, and free of alternative influence,” Wenstrup stated.

Wenstrup did not reveal the source of the information on Fauci’s CIA visit, but the letter mentioned HHS’ Special Agent Brett Rowland, requesting Grimm make him available for a “voluntary transcribed interview.”

A joint letter from the subcommittee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio), sent Sept. 12 to CIA Director William Burns, outlined the testimony of a “multi-decade, senior-level, current agency officer” alleging six of the seven analysts investigating the COVID-19 origins were given a “significant monetary incentive to change their position.”

According to the unidentified whistleblower — a decorated and long-serving CIA officer with expertise in Asia, according to the Substack Public — the six analysts, all with significant scientific expertise, were paid off in order to bury their findings that COVID-19 most likely originated from the Wuhan lab.

The seventh and most senior member of the team was alone in believing the virus had a zoonotic origin, the letter stated.

The CIA whistleblower said, “Fauci’s expert opinions were a significant consideration and were part of our classified assessment … His opinion substantially altered the conclusions that were subsequently drawn,” Public reported today.

“He came multiple times and he was treated like a rockstar by the Weapons and Counter-Proliferation Mission Center. And, he pushed the Kristian Anderson [‘Proximal Origin’] paper,” the whistleblower added.

In a separate letter, the subcommittee also requested Andrew Makridis, former COO at the CIA who was known to have taken part in the investigations, participate in an interview.

Democrats from both committees told ABC News they “were given no prior notice of a whistleblower’s existence, let alone testimony. Without further information regarding this claim from the Majority, we have no ability to assess the allegations at this time.”

CIA Director of Public Affairs Tammy Kupperman Thorp told the New York Post, “At CIA we are committed to the highest standards of analytic rigor, integrity and objectivity. We do not pay analysts to reach specific conclusions. We take these allegations extremely seriously and are looking into them.”

In June, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) declassified a 10-page report on its investigation into the links between the Wuhan lab and COVID-19. In the report, the ODNI admitted the lab performed genetic engineering of coronaviruses, that people working at the lab got sick in December 2019 “consistent with but not diagnostic of COVID-19,” and that they found a lack of “adequate biosafety precautions.”

However, the ODNI report stated the CIA remained “unable to determine the precise origin of the COVID-19 pandemic,“ but that “almost all IC [intelligence community] agencies assess that SARS-CoV-2 was not genetically engineered” and that “all IC agencies” determined the virus “was not developed as a biological weapon.”

In February, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a “low confidence” assessment that the virus most likely originated from the leak at the Wuhan lab.

Several days later, FBI Director Christopher Ray, during an interview with Fox News, said the bureau believed the pandemic was likely the result of a lab accident in Wuhan.

Fauci’s alleged visit to the CIA is the latest data point in a growing body of evidence gathered by the subcommittee investigating the pandemic showing the former NIAID director played a central role in directing and influencing the official COVID-19 origin narrative, chiefly by suppressing the lab leak theory.

Tuesday’s announcement included a link to the subcommittee’s July report, “The Proximal Origin of a Cover-Up: Did the ‘Bethesda Boys’ Downplay a Lab Leak?”

In the “Proximal Origin” paper, prompted by Fauci in early 2021 and written by Kristian Anderson, Ph.D., professor of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research, Anderson and his co-authors argued the virus was not laboratory-made or purposefully manipulated, and that the lab leak scenario was implausible.

The subcommittee report stated the “Proximal Origin” paper has been accessed 5.84 million times and was “one of the single most impactful and influential scientific papers in history” that was used to “downplay the lab leak hypothesis and call those who believe it may be true conspiracy theorists.”

The report further alleged Fauci was aware of the monetary relationship between NIAID, EcoHealth Alliance, and WIV, and that he funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the WIV.

After reviewing more than 8,000 pages of documents and 25 hours of testimony, the subcommittee concluded that “‘Proximal Origin’ employed fatally flawed science to achieve its goal … to kill the lab leak theory.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/anthony-fauci-cia-covid-origins-brad-wenstrup/

A peer-reviewed study published Sept. 19 in The Lancet provides “pretty conclusive proof” that mRNA from the COVID-19 vaccines migrates into breast milk, according to internet lecturer John Campbell, Ph.D. — despite claims by regulators, public officials and doctors that the mRNA in the vaccine would stay localized at the injection site.

A new peer-reviewed study provides “pretty conclusive proof” that mRNA from the COVID-19 vaccines migrates into breast milk — “probably for the first 48 hours after vaccination,” according to internet lecturer John Campbell, Ph.D.

Campbell, a retired emergency room nurse, teacher and author of two nursing textbooks, reviewed the study, published Sept. 19 in The Lancet, in a video presentation.

According to the study, the breast milk of 10 of 13 women who took the vaccine tested positive for mRNA up to 45 hours after the vaccine was administered.

The study confirmed the transportation of the synthetic mRNA lipid nanoparticles to the mammary glands via the bloodstream or lymphatic system, leading to its presence in breast milk, Campbell said.

“This is consistent with other studies, so there’s no real debate about this anymore,” he added.

The study did not investigate the effects of the contaminated breast milk on infants, Campbell said.

A study last year in JAMA Pediatrics produced similar results.

Regulatory bodies failed to disclose risk

According to Campbell, regulators, public officials and doctors worldwide initially claimed the mRNA in the vaccine would stay localized at the injection site.

For example, mothers were reassured by the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (ABM) in a statement released on Dec. 14, 2020, that the vaccine lipid was unlikely to enter the bloodstream and reach breast tissue.

“If it does, it is even less likely that either the intact nanoparticle or mRNA transfer into milk,” the ABM said.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology had — and continues to promote — a similar message.

Referring to the lipid nanoparticles carrying the mRNA, Campbell said, “If these people had gone to the bother of talking to anyone who specializes in pharmacokinetics … they would have said, ‘Well, with this size particle, it’s … almost certain to be distributed everywhere.’”

“It goes to your liver. It goes to your heart,” he said. “In this case, through the breasts. … It probably goes everywhere. It’s a pity we weren’t told.”

Campbell said he was “pretty cross” because such a disclosure would have reversed his decision to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that in the initial trials, breastfeeding mothers, pregnant women and infants were excluded, “yet the regulatory body still decided to go ahead and give these vaccines [to these groups] which weren’t tested.”

“That’s a question they really need to answer,” he said.

mRNA ‘hijack[s] natural process of genetic communication’

Referring to an illustration provided in the study, Campbell said synthetic mRNA can “hijack the natural process of genetic communication.”

He described the mechanism of action this way:

• The synthetic mRNA is packaged into extracellular vesicles (EVs) and secreted into breast milk. EVs are similar to the body’s own lipid nanoparticles that are naturally present in breast milk.
• This process, a natural way for mothers to transfer RNA to their babies, is mimicked by the synthetic mRNA.
• The synthetic mRNA lipid nanoparticles enter mammary epithelial cells responsible for producing milk.
• The mRNA is released into the cytosol (the clear, colloidal area) of these cells and could be packaged into EVs or excreted by various mechanisms such as exosomes, along with breast milk components.
• The EVs do not express the spike protein but serve as carriers for the synthetic mRNA.
• The study found the mRNA in the breast milk was a degraded form with only 12-25% efficiency compared to the original vaccine.

Campbell emphasized that the only way the mRNA could get to the breast tissue would be if it were “systemically absorbed.”

By Shannon Kelleher

Louisiana’s growing liquefied natural gas industry is disrupting generations-old fishing communities along the Gulf Coast with tanker traffic, habitat loss from dredging and air pollution from leaks.

[…]

Berwick comes from a long line of crabbers dating back to the 1820s when his ancestors first arrived in the heel of the Louisiana boot — the state’s southwest corner.

“Thirty years from now I want my children to be able to say, ‘this is my home, this is where eight generations of Berwicks have lived,’” he said.

But this simple dream is in danger from a growing threat facing Berwick and others who contribute to — and depend on — the $1.5 billion fishing industry along Louisiana’s Gulf Coast.

The fossil fuel industry has identified the Gulf region as a key site for expanding liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminals.

Eight new terminals are planned for southwest Louisiana alone, with a total of at least 16 new LNG projects anticipated for the Gulf region in the coming years.

The terminals take in gas from transmission pipelines, cool it to a liquid and store it for overseas exports. LNG is considered the cleanest of fossil fuels because it produces less carbon dioxide than coal and oil.

Industry groups, including the Center for LNG, claim the fuel is vital to a clean energy future, with the potential to provide energy security and “lift people out of poverty.”

But environmental groups and concerned residents call the claims “greenwashing,” citing emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane and other air pollutants associated with LNG facilities, leakage, and emissions along its supply chain. They also point to a history of alleged shoddy operating practices that jeopardize public health and safety — all forced on communities with little consent.

And for Louisiana’s Gulf Coast in particular, critics say the rise of the LNG industry is threatening to wipe out a way of life that has endured for generations and exacerbate the suffering of Gulf communities already plagued by climate-driven disasters.

An LNG export boom

Most existing LNG and planned terminals are situated along the Gulf Coast, perhaps in part due to the region’s oil- and gas-friendly regulatory environment.

The U.S. recently became the world’s largest LNG exporter following an increase in global prices for methane gas after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which led to 45 long-term contracts to export U.S.-produced methane overseas, according to a 2023 report by environmental and consumer advocacy nonprofits.

But while the industry claims U.S. LNG exports will help support national security in Europe, the report finds that more than three-fourths of the LNG stipulated in the new contracts will be shipped to Asia or commodity traders.

The Biden administration has largely supported U.S. LNG exports, which generated $35 billion in revenue through September 2022 — more than four times the revenue generated in the same period in 2021.

[…]

The U.S. currently has five LNG terminals operating on the Gulf Coast, in Louisiana and Texas.

Two of the Louisiana terminals are located adjacent to communities at opposite ends of Calcasieu Lake — Venture Global’s Calcasieu Pass, which started sending out export cargoes in 2022, and Sempra Energy’s Cameron LNG, which started full commercial operations in 2020. Another facility, Sabine Pass LNG, sits about an hour to the west on the Louisiana-Texas border.

Environmental groups have been opposing a federal permit for a new $25 billion export facility planned for Calcasieu Parish, Driftwood LNG, arguing that the permit failed to account for the project’s potential to damage wetlands. Earlier this month, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans rejected their challenge.

Flaring and fire hazards

Louisiana’s LNG export terminals have triggered numerous health and safety concerns. The Cameron LNG facility has accidentally released harmful gases 67 times since its export operations began in 2020, according to a 2022 report by the Louisiana Bucket Brigade.

Almost three-quarters of these incidents have resulted from repeated failures by the same piece of equipment, the thermal oxidizers. Whenever they shut off, the plant releases methane, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and cancer-causing benzene into the air.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that Cameron LNG has underreported the emissions from these incidents, the report says that the company has not been penalized.

Furthermore, although the Calcasieu Pass facility has been in operation for less than two years, its tenure has been “rife with flaring and accidents,” according to the Bucket Brigade report.

Flaring, when a terminal releases and burns gases, is considered a mechanism for safety and pollution control. But if the hydrocarbons it releases aren’t completely burned, they can contribute to air pollution and pose a huge safety hazard, said John Allaire, a retired engineer and environmental consultant who lives in Cameron Parish, a little over a mile from the Calcasieu Pass terminal.

[…]

Allaire said he found that the facility flared during 84 of its first 90 days of operation. Venture Global has reported very few of these incidents to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, a Louisiana Bucket Brigade analysis found.

Later this year, Venture Global plans to begin construction on another facility, Calcasieu Pass 2 (CP2), next to the existing Calcasieu Pass terminal (the project has not yet been fully approved by federal regulators). A new facility, Commonwealth LNG, is set to become Allaire’s next-door neighbor.

[…]

The fires have come close to the local LNG terminals, he said, burning right up to the edges of the storm protection barriers that surround them.

He worries that improper operating practices could turn a wildfire near an LNG plant into a bigger emergency. If a piece of flaming ash carried by strong winds was swept into the plant and hit a leak source, it could catch fire, he said.

[…]

Recent fires have come within a mile or so of 10 different sites that either currently have operating LNG terminals or have been proposed or approved for future projects, said Morgan Johnson, a staff attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In 2018, federal regulators forced the Cheniere Energy LNG facility 25 miles away to temporarily shut down two storage tanks after the discovery of a large crack.

“The tanks were leaking and they kept operating them and lost thousands and thousands of cubic feet of natural gas,” said Allaire. “If there had been a fire then and a flame had actually gotten in there, it would have been a disaster.”

Sometimes, when he’s at home, Allaire hears the sound of equipment alarms going off at Calcasieu Pass.

Last spring, he said he attended a meeting with a high-ranking Venture Global official. Allaire asked if the alarms meant he should shelter in place. The official, who did not respond to a request for comment from The New Lede, told Allaire to call 911 if he thinks he is in danger, he said.

[…]

According to a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission resource for landowners affected by natural gas facilities, compressor stations have gas and fire detection systems and emergency shutdown equipment “designed to ensure that in the event of an accident, the compressor station would be safely shut down with minimal risk to the public.”

Venture Global and Sempra Energy did not respond to The New Lede’s requests for comment about concerns related to their LNG facilities.

A sinking seafood industry

The Louisiana seafood industry accounts for one in every 70 jobs in the state, with shrimp bringing in $1.3 billion and crabs bringing in $293 million.

Companies are often owned by families that have lived in the region for generations, many of which are the Cajun descendants of exiles who fled French colonies in what is now Canada following the French and Indian War, according to Lori Cooke, a program coordinator for the Louisiana Bucket Brigade and a fifth-generation resident.

Just 25 years ago, the fishing industry in southwest Louisiana was thriving and the “biggest seafood provider anywhere in the world,” she said.

But today, the industry is in trouble.

“The LNG plants aren’t the only problem,” said Cooke. Warming waters and seafood imports that drive down prices also threaten the fishermen.

[…]

One local longline fisherman who has been catching red snapper and other species since the 1970s told Cooke there used to be 100 fishermen like him that went out on the water every day, she said. Now, the number has dwindled to 12 or 15. That fisherman, she said, now works construction jobs to supplement his income.

“Nobody celebrates an LNG paradise,” said Cooke, noting that fishing and other traditions are what form southwest Louisiana’s identity. “There is no LNG festival.”

At least four or five days a week, LNG tankers more massive than cruise ships make their way up and down the Calcasieu Ship Channel, said Cooke, which connects Lake Charles to much larger Calcasieu Lake and, ultimately, the Gulf of Mexico.

For crabbers like Berwick, the tanker traffic, which is set to increase as more LNG terminals are built, poses a major disruption. When the ships pass by, they create giant wakes that suck crab traps out into deeper water where they cannot be retrieved. This happens all the time, said Berwick, who recently gave up crabbing in the shipping channel.

[…]

Dredging to widen the shipping channel for the LNG tankers has “pretty much changed the landscape from what it was in its natural form,” added Berwick.

While Cameron LNG says mud from the dredging has been used to create 500 acres of marsh and wetlands, local shrimpers have complained that the activity prevents them from trawling.

LNG projects could destroy 1,848 acres of wetlands, according to an analysis of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission data by the watchdog group Oil and Gas Watch.

LNG tankers could also threaten fishermen’s lives. Pilots who guide the boats through the shipping channel have warned the fishermen to stay at least two miles away from the tankers, said Cooke.

If they can see the LNG ships, they are already too close.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/liquified-natural-gas-gulf-coast-fishing/

“