NIH director Francis Collins' (finally released) October 2020 email — about instituting COVID-related mind control — indicatively received almost no coverage in the US press

© 2021  Peter Free

 

26 December 2021

 

 

I struggle to retain my sense of humor

 

When I repeatedly see how Government heavy-handedly seeks to suppress free inquiry into scientific and medical matters.

 

The following information about then National Institutes of Health director, Francis Collins, came to light — only after the (libertarian-oriented) American Institute for Economic Research filed a Freedom of Information Act inquiry about it.

 

And now, after that FOIA inquiry revealed the truth, we see that the American Lamestream continues to suppress it.

 

 

To wit — Francis Collins' propaganda lips

 

On 08 October 2020, Francis Collins emailed his also powerful bureaucrats — Anthony Fauci and Cliff Lane — the following tail-twisting instruction.

 

Collins' email was about the American Feds responding to the Great Barrington Declaration.

 

The Declaration opposed the blanketly heavy-handed approach that governments had taken to coping with SARS-CoV-2's (COVID-19) spread around the world.

 

The Declaration advised a more sensibly tuned stratification of risks than had — until then and even now — been undertaken.

 

Collins — having none of such investigatively oriented and thoughtful opposition to American Government's Party Line — gave Fauci and Lane their velvet-gloved marching orders:

 

 

See https://gbdeclaration.org. This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention – and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published take down of its premises. Is it underway?

 

© 2021 Phillip W. Magness and James R. Harrigan, Fauci, Emails, and Some Alleged Science, aier.org (19 December 2021)

 

 

Regarding NIH Director Collins' question-squashing perspective

 

The three alleged "fringe" epidemiologists are, in fact, widely respected people.

 

They arguably have significantly better foundations in pandemic related matters and risk stratification than Dr. Collins himself has.

 

Here is an excerpt from the Daily Mail's account of the FOIA-prompted story — my additions inside brackets:

 

 

The GBD - authored by previous DailyMail.com contributor Jay Bhattacharya [see here] of Stanford University, Sunetra Gupta [see here] of the University of Oxford and Martin Kulldorff [see here] of Harvard University, calls for individuals at significantly lower risk of dying from COVID-19 – as well as those at higher risk who so wish – to be allowed 'to resume their normal lives.'

 

The centerpiece of the declaration, according to Dr. Bhattacharya, is a call for increased focused protection of the vulnerable older population, who are more than a thousand times more likely to die from COVID infection than the young.

 

The declaration makes no mention of social distancing, masks, tracing, or long-term Covid cases but suggests that increased infection of those at lower risks would build herd immunity. 

 

Bhattacharya tweeted in response to the emails: 'So now I know what it feels like to be the subject of a propaganda attack by my own government. Discussion and engagement would have been a better path.'

 

© 2021 Stephen M. Lepore, 'There needs to be a quick and devastating take down': Emails show how Fauci and head of NIH worked to discredit three experts who penned the Great Barrington Declaration which called for an end to lockdowns, DailyMail.co.uk (18 December 2021)

 

 

A second point about Collins' use of the word "fringe" is that one cannot be fringe, unless one is a statistical outlier in a known and (in this case) opinion-sampled population.

 

Collins, of course, has no idea what the norm-of-opinion among epidemiologists actually is. No one has sampled it.

 

In fact, I would surmise that no one even knows how many working epidemiologists populate the world.

 

To know this, we would have to create a reasonable definition for 'epidemiologist' — as it relates to Collins' use of the word — and then go out and find them all — so as to have some idea which statistically legitimate 'sampling' parameters should be applied.

 

Third, in my elderly person's experience, allegedly "fringe" opinion often attaches itself to Truth more accurately than mass opinion does.

 

People are routinely ignorant, and mind-destroying stupid, about almost everything — virtually all of the time.

 

 

What was wrong with Dr. Collins' approach?

 

If Francis Collins knew 'The Truth' — then perhaps — it would be a good idea to counter people opposed to it. But Collins did not know the truth, then or now.

 

COVID was new. And SARS-CoV-2's ramifications are still not properly investigated.

 

My own suspicion being that investigation was (and continues to be) repressed, prevented and omitted by way of profit-based purpose.

 

Plug "COVID" into the search box at the left of this page to sample some of that.

 

In essence, Dr. Collins' hidden email added momentum to American Government's suppression of scientific inquiry and debate.

 

 

Compounding this forced erasure of scientifically based evidence-weighting . . .

 

. . . there exists the American Deep State's propaganda arm. That is constituted by the corporatist-owned and oriented US Lamestream.

 

If you plug a variety of versions of the keywords — Francis Collins, 08 October 2020 email, COVID, NIH, Fauci, Lane, Barrington Declaration — into Google search, you will get (as of 26 December 2021) a list of hits that almost entirely omits anything to do with this most recent (FOIA-uncovered) revelation.

 

Suppression of truth-seeking is indicative of the Lamestream's own mindset.

 

So much for the Fourth Estate's theorized public service function.

 

 

The moral? — Government has no legitimate business doing science-mind-control

 

It is disturbing how easily the Collins(s) and Faucis of the world constrain scientifically legitimate probing, discussion and heated arguing.

 

Worse, how both profoundly influential men have molded national policy to their own, arguably ethically twisted, bents.

 

No heroes there.

 

And no intellectual value is retained in such a warped system.