1. How Congress Can Investigate the Pandemic Origins Cover-up: I ran congressional investigations into the National Institutes of Health for several years, forcing NIH reform and new laws.
Here's my advice.
2. Do not "follow the science," because virologists and NIH officials gamed the science. Just like tobacco did!
Follow the documents, follow the money.
3. Virologists gamed 3 "peer reviewed" papers early in the pandemic to misdirect the public away from a possible lab accident.
Those papers hid contributions of authors and at least two meet criteria for ghostwriting, and potential research misconduct.
Follow the documents.
4. FIRST: RELEASE DOCUMENTS THE NIH IS HIDING FROM REPORTERS
Congress must demand that the NIH turn over unredacted versions of all documents requested by media outlets, and then publish those documents so that people can see what the NIH is hiding from the press and public.
5. Reporters are having to hire lawyers and sue the NIH to get documents. This happened to Buzzfeed, Washington Post, The Intercept, and others.
Make those documents public and show what the NIH is hiding from journalists.
6. SECOND: INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL MISUSE OF "GOVERNMENT RESOURCES AND POSITION" BY VIROLOGISTS AT USAID AND THEIR CONTRACTORS
Virologist Dennis Carroll redirected funds to the Global Virome Project, then took a job there after retirement.
7. USAID's General Counsel says this violates the law, and contractors engaged in such behavior can be held liable. web.archive.org/web/2022032221…
8. USAID's Dennis Carroll also helped fundraise using his official government email.
9. Carroll redirected hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Global Virome Project.
This email shows some of the people involved.
10. THIRD: DEMAND DOCUMENTS AND FINANCIAL RECORDS HELD BY UNIVERSITY VIROLOGISTS FUNDED BY THE NIH
These demand letters must be written in a specific manner if you want easy results.
11. a) Address demands to university presidents, not the researchers. Make the institution accountable for their employee’s behavior.
b) Make academic institution lawyers sign correspondence and document production. Scientists lie, but lawyers risk losing their license.
12. c) Researchers have been caught conducting official correspondence by private email. Demand that institution lawyers search scientists’ private emails for official correspondence.
13. d) Serve subpoenas, review documents, then depose researchers under oath. Too often Congress rushes straight to hearings and TV cameras.
Stay professional and strategic.
14. I've advise multiple committees over the years, this is the first time I've released such a strategy.
1) EXCLUSIVE DOCUMENTS: Working w/ @mtaibbi we report on @CCDHate documents showing the Labour Party's political front's objective is "Kill Musk's Twitter" thru "Advertising focus" meaning harass his advertisers.
See internal documents provided by a whistleblower.
2) Internal Center for Countering Digital Hate document shows their annual objective is "Kill Musk's Twitter"
This is their internal monthly planner. Their goal is to also trigger regulatory action, although they are a tax-exempt nonprofit.
3) CCDH held a private conference w/ a slew of liberal groups organizing against Musk including Biden White House, Congressman Adam Schiff's office, Biden/Harris State Department officials, Canadian MP Peter Julian & Media Matters for America
1) Twitter Files: Democrats & media claimed Twitter 1.0 was a “private company” that made its own decisions, despite Biden Administration pressure to censor.
But new emails show Twitter hired a lobby shop staffed w/ Biden loyalists & then coordinated w/ Biden State Dept.
2) “This is John Hughes from Albright Stonebridge Group, the commercial diplomacy firm founded by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright,” wrote Twitter’s lobbyist to a senior official at State.
Twitter was seeking “advice” and help.
3) Politico reported around this same time that 10 of Biden’s top foreign policy crowd came from Albright Stonebridge.
2) Cochrane's Karla Soares-Weiser put out a statement attacking Cochrane's own mask review due to pressure from Zeynep Tufekci:
“Lisa, I have been back and forth with NYT about the mask review. CAN I GET YOUR VIEWS ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS?”
3) Several days later, Tufekci published a "masks work" essay in the NY Times and Karla Soares-Weiser rushed out a statement claiming problems with the mask review.
Soares-Weiser did this w/o consulting the scientists who wrote the mask review.
1) Going through hundreds of emails, it's clear @zeynep bullied Cochrane into publishing a statement against their own review and twisted the words of Cochrane editor Michael Brown.
2) After Cochrane published their 2023 mask review update, Bret Stephens wrote a NYT column ridiculing mask mandate activists--people like Zeynep Tufekci.
3 days later on Feb 24, Zeynep contacted Cochrane, but not the scientists. She went around them to the editors.
3) Zeynep introdued herself to Cochrane editor Michael Brown as an "academic" working on a review "in my own field."
Zeynep has published 0 in the academic literature this year, and one article in 2023--an opinion piece. As for that review, it has never appeared.