Birx, Fauci commit scientific fraud, mislead Americans about lockdowns, social distancing
(NaturalHealth365) On July 16, 2022, COVID-19 advisor Dr. Deborah Birx told the Daily Mail that SARS-CoV-2 “came out of the box ready to infect” people after it left Wuhan, China. Is this quote a wrong choice of words … or a Freudian slip hinting at the possible lab origins of the now-infamous coronavirus?
Either way, Dr. Birx hasn’t stopped saying some head-scratching things that appear to be scientific fraud. One can only wonder, what’s the “new” agenda of Dr. Birx, as her tone has certainly changed.
Presidential pandemic advisor admits she was deceitful and dishonest while pushing for COVID-19 lockdowns and social distancing
Dr. Birx recently released a new book, ominously titled Silent Invasion: The Untold Story of the Trump Administration, Covid-19, and Preventing the Next Pandemic Before It’s Too Late. In it, she describes a variety of failings from government officials surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, including what she calls the failure to “acknowledge the power of silent [viral] transmission by fully vaccinated,” according to a podcast interview with Birx released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Dr. Birx insists in her book that COVID-19 also spreads among healthy, asymptomatic, vax-free people, which is a “false presumption” according to Dr. Peter McCullough, citing a 2020 article published in Nature Communications by Cao et al. disproving the asymptomatic spread hysteria.
Writing for The Brownstone Institute, author Jeffrey Tucker provides a detailed overview of Dr. Birx’s book. He highlights several direct quotes from her book showcasing just how dishonest, fraudulent, and self-serving this woman really was. Take a look at some of her direct words:
- Writing about how she figured out how to get lockdowns approved in the U.S., despite the fact that these Draconian measures proved to be absolutely disastrous for citizens, and especially children: “We had to make these palatable to the administration by avoiding the obvious appearance of a full Italian lockdown … At the same time, we needed the measures to be effective at slowing the spread, which meant matching as closely as possible what Italy had done – a tall order. We were playing a game of chess in which the success of each move was predicated on the one before it.”
- How she got an inch and immediately wanted a mile when it came to lockdowns: “No sooner had we convinced the Trump administration to implement our version of the two-week shutdown than I was trying to figure out how to extend it.”
- How she manipulated those around her to get what she “wanted” in terms of social distancing: “I had settled on 10 [people per gathering] knowing that even that was too many, but I figured that ten would at least be palatable for most Americans – high enough to allow for most gatherings of immediate family but not enough for large dinner parties and, critically, large weddings, birthday parties, and other mass social events.” She adds, “If I pushed for zero (which was actually what I wanted and what was required), this would have been interpreted as a ‘lockdown’ – the perception we were all working so hard to avoid.”
- On how she used “strategic sleight-of-hand” to manipulate data to continue pushing her pandemic control agenda, even when plenty of states were opening up again: “I’d reinsert what [the Trump Administration] had objected to [in the weekly COVID-19 reports], but place it in those different locations. I’d also reorder and restructure the bullet points so the most salient – the points the administration objected to most – no longer fell at the start of the bullet points. I shared these strategies with the three members of the data team also writing these reports. Our Saturday and Sunday report-writing routine soon became: write, submit, revise, hide, resubmit. Fortunately, this strategic sleight-of-hand worked. That they never seemed to catch this subterfuge left me to conclude that either they read the finished reports too quickly or they neglected to do the word search that would have revealed the language to which they objected. In slipping these changes past the gatekeepers and continuing to inform the governors of the need for the big-three mitigations – masks, sentinel testing, and limits on indoor social gatherings – I felt confident I was giving the states permission to escalate public health mitigation with the fall and winter coming.”
If it didn’t reveal the ongoing manipulation she and her colleagues used to push their agendas ahead, Dr. Birx’s words would almost sound funny. Yet far from grounding her decisions in scientific reality, it seems she was “playing a game” with American citizens.
Do as I say, not as I do?
We saw plenty of egregious examples of “rules for thee, but not for me” from our elected leaders throughout the pandemic – and plenty of our unelected leaders, too. Apparently, Dr. Birx was no exception.
As Jeffrey Tucker notes, Dr. Birx resigned in disgrace in December 2020 after “she was caught violating her own stay-at-home order.”
Sources for this article include: