darn, missed it again1

Great idea! +1

I'd really like to see Fauci's net worth. He should live relatively modestly with a government service salary, but I suspect not.

Trust Fauci? The more I learn about the man, the less I trust him. Masks are for keeping to yourself any infections you may have, but the problem is that these should be changed regularly. You can bet that's not happening in the general populace.

"I learned in college biology, that we do need exposure to germs out there, or we will be hit with a storm after lengthy isolation."

That's the same thing multiple doctors (including Dr. Erickson) have argued and its the same thing my doctor told my wife when she was embarrassed because our six-month-old was chewing on her flip-flop.

"It seems Trump is doing as he did with deep state..."

My hope is that this exposes Fauci along with other deep-staters in an agency with - as we are finding out - tremendous authority. My hope is that the draconian shut-down orders are shown to be a farce and these people are encouraged to retire.

And FWIW they series recently produced called The Truth About Vaccines has also be censored. You want to see that one. Much of the research they covered simply confirmed my research. I feel old...haha.

More like 20%

White Lies...a warning about additional parts to the "Plandemic" movie.

The message is one thing but who is the messenger, the interviewer and his associations.
Part one of plandemic could be a Trojan Horse.

https://vimeo.com/416789907

Snopes is one of many sites quite reliable as long as the issue is not political, as most are.

I see it has been deleted again. Her is the link to the source video: https://plandemicmovie.com/

"trust your life to Fauci?"
Only if he had a financial/power incentive to keep me healthy.

Does this mean you would trust your life to Fauci? This man is telling people to wear masks, while my long line internal med doc, says they are incubators for any germs you may have or which pass through. He asys they are meant for surgery, or short term use. Yet, too many governors are demanding them. I learned in college biology, that we do need exposure to germs out there, or we will be hit with a storm after lengthy isolation. It seems Trump is doing as he did with deep state, trusting Obama holdovers in medical issues, when he should be chcking them out better. Fauci is suspect in my mind, as he was long before I saw this video. .

It was gone again, but I had seen it earlier. Fauci gives me the creeps. He seems more into control than science. I know, he is a virologist, but his organization is named on a CDC grant, to work at the lab outside Wuhan, which calls for learing how to create the virus. It also calls for them to "study the spread pattern." Now, how can that be done, unless it is released on purpose? This man passes out money and gets more money, but seems to be off on his answers, I wish Trump could take him off the team. This, it will be back in the fall, screams second release, not resurgence. We are being duped, and used as lab rats, toward the goal of one world gov.

Snopes is run by a couple liberal former teachers. Enough said of their opinions.

Great comparison. Well done...

I will say it again. I have seen how much the NIH wants to hide the truth. Hint: a lot.

Thanks. Deleted at youtube again...

Got this same video link to YouTube from a friend yesterday. Video was posted 7 hours before when I downloaded it. 3 hours later it was banned from YouTube by the YouTube Police (YTP). Then today same friend sends me this link, "Debunked Plandemic Documentary". I found no credible credentials for the author(s), except what looks like a fake "Copyright 2020" at the end. https://coronafact.us/facts/debunked-...

With respect to Dr. Mikovits, Ph.D., her fields are biochemistry and molecular biology. She cited the article, Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among Department of Defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season. She misrepresented the findings of that study. Read it and you will understand. This is not a defense of Fauci, etc. Just because he has been wrong does not make her right.

I downloaded it.

Yes it would

Thanks for posting. My comments:

1. Despite all the links, nothing here disproves her claims that the evidence was planted. It only notes the outcomes of the cases; it fails to address her claims of evidence tampering. This is a counter-argument - not a refutation.
2a. The definition of a gag order is cited right there in the "debunk." What is noticeably missing is the length of the order. If it was five years as claimed by Mikovits this is substantiation - not refutation.
2b. The first link here is only a rehash of the articles from 2a. The second links to a paper which refutes Mikovits' study. The problem is that Mikovits addressed the contamination issue in the video by noting the involvement of researchers who wanted to sabotage her. This one leans against Mikovits unless she has proof of the contamination being actually sabotage.
2c. This is an explanation of the retraction given by one person and does not list the original authors. Mikovits addressed this in the video claiming that this move was paid off. This one could go either way - its all in who one wants to believe.
2d. What is interesting is that the article mentions that Mikovits had published 40 papers prior to that and mentions no prior retractions. The main point of contention was that they claimed that she had actually created the virus she was studying rather than finding it raw in nature. In the video, Mikovits explained that she had isolated the virus out of patients but that it was an artificial virus in the first place. If this was the case, the refutation becomes a straw man.
3a. Relationships change. If one discovered payoffs to Kramer, it would turn this from attempted refutation to clear confirmation. I remain unpersuaded by this argument either way without first-hand evidence.
3b. These are allegations - not proof. The article provides no information other than claims. Personnel records would end the debate here.
4. The first article is a bio of Fauci. It's long, but interestingly it also rebuts 3a by specifically citing Kramer's personal attacks on Fauci during the AIDS epidemic. What I find missing is anything related to Mikovits. It gives loose timelines and generalities of what Fauci was involved in, but I'm not seeing the direct refutation. The second article is just a link to an FDA policy page - which obviously didn't exist during AIDS and has probably changed since that time.
5a. This is information. Interesting, but hardly argumentative.
5b. While this one does appear to debunk the notion that Fauci personally benefited from the patents, what it does expose is the large amount of grant money that Fauci influences due to his position. What would be interesting would be to see if Fauci received any kickbacks from those grants and licenses, demonstrating a pay-to-play scheme...
6. Mikovits does need to prove her claim, either by demonstrating that the viruses she notes were artificially created or spread using Gates' money/influence. The burden of proof lies with Mikovits here.
7a. This one would have to be evaluated by someone in the field.
7b. "In Trial" and "showing promise" are different than "in production" or "effective." This is a poor excuse for a refutation.
8. This is a subjective interpretation of a person's opinion. Mikovits says she is not anti-vaccine as a rule, she's just against the peddling of vaccines by (certain) people to make money. This is a fallacy of absolutes argument.
9a. The research lab is used to do that - research. It doesn't preclude one from reading the available papers and material and drawing conclusions based on that information. Her 20+ years in the field didn't just melt away simply because she got thrown in jail. This is a red herring. And having read other research reports which notes the statistical impossibility of DNA sequence similarities between COVID-19 and SARS and HIV, this one degenerates into which-researcher-do-you-want-to-believe-more. And with the US government/intelligence agencies now siding with the artificially-created in the Wuhan lab side of the argument and the associations of these other nation's epidemiology centers with the compromised WHO... I'd say this one is unpersuasive at best and more evidence of corruption/collusion at worst.
9b. See 9a. above.
10. This one actually confirms Mikovits' accusation that Fauci funded the Wuhan lab. But without knowing what the Wuhan lab actually did, we may never know if Fauci directly funded the development of COVID-19.
11. Have to be careful on the timeline here and the interpretation of what was actually said by Mikovits. Another way of interpreting her remarks is that while she was at Fort Dietrich she came across the research previously done which allowed Ebola to jump to humans. This one needs better explanation either way.
12. So because doctors have differences of opinion on how to treat patients, one doctor's evaluations are suddenly incorrect? Not buying this one at all. Why? I have to ask why suddenly now - after at least a dozen other highly-infectious diseases have come out in the past two decades are we suddenly reversing course on our approach to disease prevention - by quarantining healthy people. I'm with Dr. Erickson on this one - not Dr. Fauci.
And while they try to make the payment amounts seem like standard procedure, they are still forced to admit that there are financial incentives - being pushed by the NIH and CDC - to tie COVID-19 to any death.
Lastly, the testing being implemented is showing a MUCH higher infection rate than previously thought - and that most of these new tests have turned up people who were asymptomatic. This runs counter to the narrative that COVID-19 is as deadly as the original estimates and undermines the credibility of Fauci, et al - precisely what they are trying to avoid.
13. Mikovits also pointed to the problem with Italy: its high number of elderly patients. The "debunk" on this one is rather weak.
14a. The effectiveness of any particular drug should be evaluated by the doctors treating their patients. The problem is that this is a pretty weak denial by Fauci et al when the reported success is undeniable. And if they want a double-blind test, let's see the results from South Dakota - which offered to be the study.
14b. But was the drug effective in treating COVID-19? That's the real question - not whether or not it got them off ventilators.
14c. But here the "debunkers" are admitting that there has been success with the drug where earlier they are claiming that there is no evidence of success. Which is it?
15. Further research is needed into the claims of both.
16. Informational - not argumentative postulation.
17a/b. This is genetic hair-splitting at its finest on one side and a possible over-generalization on the other. The real question is whether one coronavirus is similar enough to another to validate the comparison. The data is authentic. What is in question is its extrapolation.
18. This is a straw man. Mikovits never said going to the beach would cure you. She said it bolstered one's immune system - which is true.
19. And the one which is first will reap huge profits. So find out which one(s) are backed by Bill Gates. Just because there are dozens doesn't mean anything. And an interesting question arises: how many of these researchers are being funded by NIH or WHO grants?
20. This can easily be interpreted as marketing. It actually turns sinister if Mikovits' accusations of Fauci's intentions are true.

So after careful review of each point, many aren't actual refutations but rather counter-arguments at best (1, 2a, 2d, 3a, 3b, 4, 5a, 7b, 8, 9a/b, 10, 12, 13, 14a/b/c, 16, 17a/b, 18, 19, 20). Mikovits certainly has her work cut out for her in proving her allegations (2b, 2c, 5b, 6, 7a, 11, 15), but if true are nothing short of criminal.

Snopes (for what little its worth) sort of denies it in a long and rambling response. Excessive verbiage to refute is always a flag that Snopes is having difficulty debunking.

Dr. Fauci is Dr. Stadler. There are many troubling ancillary issues creating a bleak conclusion. One, as you mention, is censorship. Not only are there many videos being removed, but I know a dozen people whose posts have been deleted, including an Objectivist friend who is a writer for Evie Magazine. Even though it was non-partisan and non-accusatory it was still taken down. Below is her link and article.
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/fac...

I'm posting a video url that was posted on YouTube by my local state senator. https://youtu.be/v1xI2ediSJM

Another damning video how the virus got to the US and the influence of B,Gates in suppressing Hydroxy-Q.

Snopes discredits most of it. She has a long history of questionable claims.