In 2020, Anthony Fauci became the poster boy for America’s COVID response. President Trump relied on him because he headed the government agency tasked with dealing with infectious diseases. Then, the Democrat party, in politics and the media, glorified him when it was apparent that he would help destroy Trump’s reelection. The year 2021, though, hasn’t gone so well for Fauci, as it’s been revealed that he’s been consistently wrong, that he flip-flops according to politics and, now, that he may have used taxpayer money to help pay for developing COVID.
It's becoming increasingly apparent that COVID was not a random bat disease that just happened to break out in a Wuhan wet market. Just yesterday, David Asher, a former State Department employee during the Trump administration, stated on Fox that the odds of COVID being natural were de minimus:
In fact, I had viral statisticians at one of our national labs calculate the odds of this evolving in nature and it was like 1 in 13 million and they later revised it to around 1 in 13 billion.
Add to that the genetic evidence that it was manmade and it’s pretty darn clear that China has a lot to answer for. Even Biden has had to admit this fact.
But here in America, Anthony Fauci has a lot to answer for too. He doesn’t just have to answer for the manic mask mandates and the lockdowns, or for ridiculing treating people before they got desperately ill with a cocktail of hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and zinc.
What Fauci also has to answer for is sending American money, directly and indirectly, to the Wuhan lab – something he finally admitted after lying about it for weeks. Fauci’s still claiming, though, that this money had nothing to do with gain of function research on bat viruses -- that is, research that boosts the virus’s ability to cross from animals to humans.
However, Fauci’s latest denial is beginning to look remarkably like a lie when it’s held up against a speech he made back in 2012. An Australian publication (behind a paywall) quoted Fauci discussing the risks inherent in “gain of function” research. Back then, he maintained “that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”
Click for Full Text!