Remembering the future sentencing of Dr Anthony Fauci

To have a separate discussion between themselves should do so in an appropriate location.
The Middle of an on going Thread IS NOT the appropriate location for that discussion.

Could the OP post the court docket where said case is.

Really gets me that alot of people who rage about a shot will willingly roll up their sleeves to get a flu shot and not question it.

As far as I know, there has never been a 100% safe vaccine. Dummies refuse to look at the upside of lifes saved and focus on the minutae (sp) of deaths.

Guess this guy has just as bad a reputation as Dr F.

...Really gets me that alot of people who rage about a shot will willingly roll up their sleeves to get a flu shot and not question it.... Originally Posted by Precious_b

Not I.

A review/overview of a recent book by JFK Jr. The Real Anthony Fauci, for those that think Dr Fauci should be canonized as a Saint or be labeled as The Science. Truth be told, he is a career bureaucrat that slowly climbed the ladder over a long period of time and nothing more. The Peter Principle in action. He gives away other peoples money to people/business that will ultimately return either money or favors.

Keep in mind that, in other news, we have learned that the WH was big heavy leaning on the Amazon, to censor and/or restrict books, ala 1984. The full article is worth a read, likely the book as well, if you can find it.

...Anthony Fauci was never elected, has essentially never practiced medicine in a clinical setting, is not a health policy expert, and is not even an epidemiologist. Why would anybody have listened to him or cared what he thought during two of the largest-scale public health crises in recent history?...

Fauci Was Just a Symptom
By Jeffrey H. Anderson

The mainstream press corps prefers to deal with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by pretending that he doesn’t exist. This is true both for his presidential campaign—which is thought to pose too much of a threat to President Biden to risk acknowledging it—and for his popular book, The Real Anthony Fauci.

Relegated to Skyhorse Publishing, which Wall Street Journal film critic Kyle Smith describes as “something of a refuge for the cancelled,” Kennedy’s book nevertheless cracked the top 15 on the New York Times hardcover nonfiction best-seller list for 15 consecutive weeks—topping out at #7. Yet apparently it did not merit space in the Times for a review. Wikipedia quickly dismisses The Real Anthony Fauci as a “controversial” book by a “conspiracy theorist” who unjustifiably “attacks” Fauci and “offers disinformation.”

In truth, however, Kennedy’s book is a valuable and generally well-researched indictment of the public health establishment, and more broadly of anti-republican rule by “experts.” While the book’s claims should not be taken as gospel in the way that the credulous press corps hangs on Fauci’s every muddled word, Kennedy shows impressive willingness to stand strong against the current, and his informative and rather countercultural book is very much worth a read. He makes a compelling case that—from AIDS to Covid—Fauci and friends have been pursuing their own agenda at the expense of the American people.

Kennedy chronicles a federal public health establishment that wields nearly monopolistic control over America’s medical research, funding, and messaging. That establishment ensures that university researchers are almost entirely dependent upon federal grants, regularly stifles free inquiry and open debate, effectively “cancels” those who deviate from the establishment orthodoxy, seems uninterested in any sort of care or prevention not involving a pharmaceutical patent, ensures that government public health employees are enriched by pharmaceutical royalties, and—all in all—represents one of the worst examples of the pitfalls of centralized power and control anywhere on our shores.

A book ostensibly about a particular villain in the play, The Real Anthony Fauci ultimately reveals that the problem goes well beyond one especially truth-eschewing, self-serving, camera-hogging bureaucrat. Anthony Fauci was never elected, has essentially never practiced medicine in a clinical setting, is not a health policy expert, and is not even an epidemiologist. Why would anybody have listened to him or cared what he thought during two of the largest-scale public health crises in recent history? The answer is that he was a senior representative of the public health establishment. That goes a long way with a leftist press corps that loves the idea of rule by government, of rule by “experts,” and especially of rule by “government experts.”...

...Older than Joe Biden, Fauci has been swimming in that swamp for a long time. The year that Fauci was first employed by the federal government, Mickey Mantle was still wearing pinstripes. By his own admission, Fauci joined the Public Health Service to avoid serving in Vietnam.

Raised Roman Catholic but now a self-described “humanist,” Fauci seems to have had a particular knack for talking those with the last name of Bush into doing things he wanted them to do. He managed to get George H. W. Bush to say during a presidential debate that Fauci was “a very fine researcher, top doctor at National Institute of Health, working hard doing something, research on this disease of AIDS.” And he managed to coax George W. Bush into saying in his 2003 State of the Union address, “I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean.” This effort, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), would become a pillar of Bush’s so-called “compassionate conservatism.”

HHS now brazenly asserts that PEPFAR has saved “over 25 million lives.” The sole basis for this dubious claim seems to be that over 25 million people (counting babies in the womb) have been given antiviral drugs. HHS’s apparent dual assumption is that every one of those people would have died without the drugs, and every one of them has subsequently survived because of the drugs. This is what passes for scientific rigor at HHS.

Kennedy references Fauci’s “libertine approach to facts.” He elaborates, “Tony Fauci does not do public health; he is a businessman, who has used his office to enrich his pharmaceutical partners and expand [his] reach of influence.” Kennedy quotes Dr. Jonathan Fishbein, a former division director at NIAID under Fauci, as saying, “Dealing with Tony Fauci is like dealing with organized crime. He’s like the godfather.” But much like the mafia problem is bigger than any boss, the problem of the swamp is much bigger than Fauci...

It most definitely did not. Procedures certainly changed to protect the health of the workers and patients but the doctors and other medical staff still worked in the best interests of their patients... Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Oh did they now (then)?!? Are you certain the "procedures" and "protocols" weren't driven by something else, such as:

• Pay-2-Play?
• Da Munny Hunny?
• Go along to get along?
• Mo' Moooo-la for Youuuu-la?
• Skritch my butt and I'll skritch yours?

Top Attorney Testifies: Hospitals Were ‘Incentivized’ to ‘Murder Covid Patients’
Frank Bergman May 25, 2024

Renowned American attorney Tom Renz has testified before the Ohio Senate with explosive allegations against the medical industry and federal government health officials.

According to Renz, hospitals and doctors were “incentivized” to “murder” their patients to create the illusion that COVID-19 was a significant threat to public health.

During his testimony, Renz revealed that hospitals received more money from the government for every patient that tested positive for Covid.

They received additional funding for treating patients for Covid and even more when the virus was listed as the cause of their death.

Renz notes that this system encouraged hospitals to inflate Covid numbers and even “murder” patients.

“If you go to the hospital and you get a positive Covid test, then the hospital gets more money,” Renz told lawmakers during the hearing.

“If you get put on remdesivir, the hospital gets more money.

“If you get put on a vent, the hospital gets more money.”

“Instead of saying, ‘You get more money when this patient’s healthy,’ we said, ‘You get more money when they die.’”

The testimony from Renz adds further confirmation of recent reporting from Slay News.

Several whistleblowers have provided explosive testimony during an official inquiry, revealing that hospitals were euthanizing patients during the pandemic and blaming their deaths on Covid.

The patients were reportedly given a lethal drug combination before their deaths were listed under “COVID-19” in an apparent effort to boost the number of fatalities from the virus.

The bombshell testimonies were provided during the ongoing Scottish COVID-19 Inquiry.

The independent inquiry has now been ongoing for almost two months...

Think HARD on that a bit and recall that the absolute, hands-down, most at risk, to contract the covid with major complications, including DEATH were:

• People over 65 years old
• Multiple co-morbidities
• Subject to the above "protocols"

Then THINK, for a change, HARD, on the current fiscal health of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid government programs.

Could the OP post the court docket where said case is.

Really gets me that alot of people who rage about a shot will willingly roll up their sleeves to get a flu shot and not question it.

As far as I know, there has never been a 100% safe vaccine. Dummies refuse to look at the upside of lifes saved and focus on the minutae (sp) of deaths.

Guess this guy has just as bad a reputation as Dr F.

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Introducing Toxic Chemicals into the body is a huge risk. That's what Ehrlich did with Salvarsan and what Fauci did with AZT and the Covid Vaccine.

Would ya like some censorship wid dat?

Explosive Study Once Removed by Lancet within 24 Hours, Now Peer-Reviewed and Public: Reveals 74% of Deaths Directly Linked to COVID-19 Shot
by Jim Hᴏft Jun. 23, 2024

A previously censored paper from The Lancet has now undergone peer review and is available online.

The study, titled “A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination,” analyzed 325 autopsy cases and found that a staggering 73.9% of deaths were either directly due to or significantly contributed to by the COVID-19 vaccination.

The paper’s lead author, Dr. Nicolas Hulscher, faced significant opposition in bringing these findings to light. After initially being downloaded over 100,000 times, The Lancet removed the paper within 24 hours, according to Dr. William Makis.

According to The Daily Sceptic, the reason given at the time was, “This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.”

The news outlet added:

“Without further detail from the Preprints with the Lancet staff who removed the paper it is hard to know what substance the claim that the conclusions are not supported by the methodology really has. A number of the authors of the paper are at the top of their fields so it is hard to imagine that the methodology of their review was really so poor that it warranted removal at initial screening rather than being subject to full critical appraisal. It smacks instead of raw censorship of a paper that failed to toe the official line. Keep in mind that the CDC has not yet acknowledged a single death being caused by the Covid mRNA vaccines. Autopsy evidence demonstrating otherwise is clearly not what the U.S. public health establishment wants to hear.”

“BREAKING NEWS: Our LANCET CENSORED Paper is now peer reviewed and available online!” Makis wrote on X....

Not I. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Introducing Toxic Chemicals into the body is a huge risk. That's what Ehrlich did with Salvarsan and what Fauci did with AZT and the Covid Vaccine. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Like y'all *NEVER* had a needle put in you to vaccinate yourself against something.

Of course putting things in your body is a risk. Even water. As Norman Cousins said, make your body the most inhospitable host. That is the point: you don't want the thing making you sick to stay around.

If this wasn't true, than show us all results that Dr Erlich was wrong.

Oh did they now (then)?!? Are you certain the "procedures" and "protocols" weren't driven by something else, such as:

• Pay-2-Play?
• Da Munny Hunny?
• Go along to get along?
• Mo' Moooo-la for Youuuu-la?
• Skritch my butt and I'll skritch yours?

Think HARD on that a bit and recall that the absolute, hands-down, most at risk, to contract the covid with major complications, including DEATH were:

• People over 65 years old
• Multiple co-morbidities
• Subject to the above "protocols"

Then THINK, for a change, HARD, on the current fiscal health of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid government programs.

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Okay, you have one man's statements, totally unproven. Renz is a lawyer in Ohio who passed the bar exam in 2019 on his fifth try. Not too impressive. When you read his bio, he comes off as a nut case. He has filed a number of Covid-related federal lawsuits in several states.

"In Ohio federal court, Renz filed three lawsuits related to the pandemic. One was withdrawn in March after U.S. District Judge James Carr asked Renz to show cause why it shouldn’t be dismissed.

Carr said the first complaint filed by Renz and his co-counsel was “well-nigh incomprehensible.” The judge said an amended complaint was “an impenetrable thicket of often conclusory and speculative assertions, allegations, contentions, innuendo, and legal arguments and citations.”

The complaint is “neither short nor plain,” Carr concluded, citing federal lawsuit requirements. Renz told the Post he disagreed with the judge’s assessment."

My guess is the other cases filed by Renz will be dismissed.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...trable-thicket

Like y'all *NEVER* had a needle put in you to vaccinate yourself against something.

Of course putting things in your body is a risk. Even water. As Norman Cousins said, make your body the most inhospitable host. That is the point: you don't want the thing making you sick to stay around.

If this wasn't true, than show us all results that Dr Erlich was wrong. Originally Posted by Precious_b

Dr. Ehrlich developed a drug called Salvarsan for the treatment of syphilis. Salvarsan was highly toxic because it was an organoarsenic Compound, tt had a tendency to damage veins. Later on Penicillin was developed and since it was synthesized from mold it was low toxicity and the use of Salvarsan was discontinued.

Dr. Ehrlich developed a drug called Salvarsan for the treatment of syphilis. Salvarsan was highly toxic because it was an organoarsenic Compound, tt had a tendency to damage veins. Later on Penicillin was developed and since it was synthesized from mold it was low toxicity and the use of Salvarsan was discontinued. Originally Posted by Levianon17

What's your point? That the first jab is always bad?

What's your point? That the first jab is always bad? Originally Posted by Diligaf

No my point is anything that contains Arsenic is highly Toxic and it can kill ya such as Salvarsan. Ehrlich was basically slowly poisoning his patients in an effort to eradicate Syphilis.

Okay, you have one man's statements, totally unproven Yet. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

FTFY For the record, it is now on the record as it was accepted as a case.

...Renz is a lawyer in Ohio who passed the bar exam in 2019 on his fifth try. Not too impressive... Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Which if I read the tea leaves correctly is one time more than you have passed it to date. Besides, all lawyers do not pass the bar on their first attempt. I know several. Sometimes it is more dependent on where they took the bar (jurisdiction). Here's a random list of failures at the task:

Jerry Brown: Attorney General of California (and former California governor). Failed the California bar once before passing.

Hillary Clinton: Former First Lady; graduate of the Yale Law School...Failed the D.C. bar exam in the 1970s. (She passed the Arkansas bar subsequently)

John F. Kennedy, Jr.: ... Failed the New York bar twice, before passing on the third try.

Emily Pataki: ... Failed the New York bar the first time

Kathleen Sullivan: Former dean of Stanford Law School, leading constitutional law scholar, and possible Supreme Court nominee (or Solicitor General pick) in a Democratic administration. Failed the California bar exam when she took it in July 2005.

Pete Wilson: Former California governor. Failed the California bar exam three times...

A review/overview of a recent book by JFK Jr. The Real Anthony Fauci, for those that think Dr Fauci should be canonized as a Saint or be labeled as The Science. Truth be told, he is a career bureaucrat that slowly climbed the ladder over a long period of time and nothing more. The Peter Principle in action. He gives away other peoples money to people/business that will ultimately return either money or favors... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

We were warned about this by the Founding Fathers, especially Hamilton about this behavior, i.e. tendency.

Pandemic Was Used as Power Play

The federal government, with its "natural tendency" to reach for power, cannot handle a future pandemic, Rep. Rich McCormick, who is a medical doctor, told Newsmax Sunday.

"This is what my biggest criticism was all along," the Georgia Republican said on Newsmax's "Sunday Report." "You have people who never treated a patient making decisions for you medically about what you can do, what you have access to, whether you can travel, whether your business can be open or closed."

During the COVID-19 pandemic, he added, the government closed down tens of thousands of businesses that will never reopen "because they were scared, because they had zero tolerance for anybody else's opinions, and that's what the government did wrong."

McCormick's comments came in response to those made last week by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, who admitted that schools likely stayed closed for too long during the pandemic.

Such control, the congressman said, is "why government has to be fought against, whether it be climate change, a pandemic or anything else where they say, This is an emergency, and we need to take your money and take control of your lives."

The government, he added, protected Fauci so it could keep control of its power.

"They make it into a religion and that's why they protect people like Fauci who believe in government power," said McCormick...

I am convinced that fifty years from now, historians and political science writers will treat Fanucci harshly. . . . Ms. Birx too.

Wish I could read the neutral analysis of these times tat will come out after I am gone.