WASHINGTON (New York Post) — A cancer charity started by Joe Biden gave out no money to research, and spent most of its contributions on staff salaries, federal filings show.
The Biden Cancer Initiative was founded in 2017 by the former vice president and his wife, Jill Biden, to “develop and drive implementation of solutions to accelerate progress in cancer prevention, detection, diagnosis, research and care and to reduce disparities in cancer outcomes,” according to its IRS mission statement. But it gave out no grants in its first two years, and spent millions on the salaries of former Washington, DC, aides it hired.
The charity took in $4,809,619 in contributions in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, and spent $3,070,301 on payroll in those two years. The group’s president, Gregory Simon, raked in $429,850 in fiscal 2018 (July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019), according to the charity’s most recent federal tax filings.
Simon, a former Pfizer executive and longtime health care lobbyist who headed up the White House’s cancer task force in President Barack Obama’s administration, saw his salary nearly double from the $224,539 he made in fiscal 2017, tax filings show.
Danielle Carnival, former chief of staff for Obama’s cancer initiative, the Cancer Moonshot Task Force, took home $258,207 in 2018.
The charity spent $56,738 on conferences and $59,356 on travel that year. The following year, the travel expenditure swelled to $97,149, and the nonprofit spent $742,953 on conferences, tax filings show.
But under grants distributed, it listed zero.
Simon had said the main point of the charity was not to give out grants, and that its goal was to find ways to accelerate treatment for all, regardless of their economic or cultural backgrounds.
Biden headed up the Cancer Moonshot Task Force when he was veep after his son Beau died of a brain tumor in 2015. After he left office, the Biden Cancer Initiative sought to continue such efforts to provide “urgent” solutions to treating cancer, according to a 2017 press statement announcing its launch.
The Bidens stacked the board with leading oncologists and celebrity cancer survivors, including musician Jimmy Gomez from the Black Eyed Peas.
After only two years, the charity “paused” its operations when Joe Biden and his wife stepped down for his presidential run.
Although the organization is still officially active, according to the IRS, Simon said in a 2019 interview that without the Bidens at the helm, the charity lost its edge.
“We tried to power through but it became increasingly difficult to get the traction we needed to complete our mission,” he told the AP in July 2019.
Neither Simon nor Biden could be reached for comment.
The New York Post’s Isabel Vincent contributed to the contents of this report.
AUSTIN (Brownstone Institute) — The WHO recently announced plans for an international pandemic treaty tied to a digital passport and digital ID system. Meeting in December 2021 in a special session for only the second time since the WHO’s founding in 1948, the Health Assembly of the WHO adopted a single decision titled, “The World Together.”
The WHO plans to finalize the treaty by 2024. It will aim to shift governing authority now reserved to sovereign states to the WHO during a pandemic by legally binding member states to the WHO’s revised International Health Regulations.
In January of 2022 the United States submitted proposed amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations, which bind all 194 UN member states, which the WHO director general accepted and forwarded to other member states. In contrast to amendments to our own constitution, these amendments will not require a two-thirds vote of our Senate, but a simple majority of the member states.
Most of the public is wholly unaware of these changes, which will impact the national sovereignty of member states.
The proposed amendments include, among others, the following. Among the changes the WHO will no longer need to consult with the state or attempt to obtain verification from the state where a reported event of concern (e.g., a new outbreak) is allegedly occurring before taking action on the basis of such reports (Article 9.1).
In addition to the authority to make the determination of a public health emergency of international concern under Article 12, the WHO will be granted additional powers to determine a public health emergency of regional concern, as well as a category referred to as an intermediate health alert.
The relevant state no longer needs to agree with the WHO Director General’s determination that an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern. A new Emergency Committee will be constituted at the WHO, which the Director-General will consult in lieu of the state within whose territory the public health emergency of international concern has occurred, to declare the emergency over.
The amendments will also give “regional directors” within the WHO, rather than elected representatives of the relevant states, the legal authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern.
Also, when an event does not meet criteria for a public health emergency of international concern but the WHO Director-General determines it requires heightened awareness and a potential international public health response, he may determine at any time to issue an “intermediate public health alert” to states and consult the WHO’s Emergency Committee. The criteria for this category are simple fiat: “the Director-General has determined it requires heightened international awareness and a potential international public health response.”
Through these amendments, the WHO, with the support of the U.S., appears to be responding to roadblocks that China erected in the early days of covid. This is a legitimate concern. But the net effect of the proposed amendments is a shift of power away from sovereign states, ours included, to unelected bureaucrats at the WHO. The thrust of every one of the changes is toward increased powers and centralized powers delegated to the WHO and away from member states.
Leslyn Lewis, a member of the Canadian parliament and lawyer with international experience, has warned that the treaty would also allow the WHO unilaterally to determine what constitutes a pandemic and declare when a pandemic is occurring. “We would end up with a one-size-fits-all approach for the entire world,” she cautioned. Under the proposed WHO plan, pandemics need not be limited to infectious diseases and could include, for example, a declared obesity crisis.
As part of this plan, the WHO has contracted German-based Deutsche Telekom subsidiary T-Systems to develop a global vaccine passport system, with plans to link every person on the planet to a QR code digital ID. “Vaccination certificates that are tamper-proof and digitally verifiable build trust. WHO is therefore supporting member states in building national and regional trust networks and verification technology,” explained Garret Mehl, head of the WHO’s Department of Digital Health and Innovation. “The WHO’s gateway service also serves as a bridge between regional systems. It can also be used as part of future vaccination campaigns and home-based records.”
This system will be universal, mandatory, trans-national, and operated by unelected bureaucrats in a captured NGO who already bungled the covid pandemic response.
Aaron Kheriaty of the Brownstone Institute Contributed to the Contents of This Report.
WASHINGTON (Breitbart)– Senate Democrats on Wednesday failed to pass legislation that would prohibit local, state, and federal governments from preventing abortions.
The Senate attempted to invoke cloture and end debate on S. 4132, the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022. The motion failed 49-51, as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) opposed the motion, and it required 60 votes to invoke cloture. The legislation would prohibit government restrictions on access to abortions. Specifically, the legislation states that governments may not limit a healthcare provider’s ability to:
- Prescribe certain drugs
- Offer abortion services via telemedicine
- Immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient’s health
The legislation, according to Congress.gov, stipulates:
In addition, governments may not (1) require patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or disclose their reasons for obtaining such services, or (2) prohibit abortion services before fetal viability or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient’s life or health.
The bill also prohibits other governmental measures that are similar to the bill’s specified restrictions or that otherwise single out and impede access to abortion services, unless a government demonstrates that the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.
The Department of Justice, individuals, or providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.
The bill applies to restrictions imposed both prior and subsequent to the bill’s enactment.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) sponsored the legislation after Politico leaked a draft Supreme Court opinion that would strike down Roe v. Wade. The Senate Democrats proposed the legislation to attempt to enshrine many of the pro-abortion protections enabled by the landmark Supreme Court ruling.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) said in a statement after the vote:
Today’s vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act is a continuation of the left’s mission to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and prop up their abortion-on-demand agenda. This bill would force states to legalize late-term abortions, remove informed consent laws, and prevent restrictions on gruesome fetal dismemberment procedures. Today, I stood up to the woke mob and voted to protect women and their unborn children.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who voted against the bill, said that the bill “would disenfranchise every voter in Missouri, overturn our state laws – and give the power to DC Democrats.”
Sean Moran of Breitbart contributed to the contents of this report.
WASHINGTON– In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has voted to strike down Roe v. Wade according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.
Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion below.
New report calls into question Dr. Kristian Andersen’s assertion he never suppressed lab leak theory
WASHINGTON—Republican Whip and Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis Ranking Member Steve Scalise (R-La.), House Committee on Oversight and Reform Ranking Member James Comer (R-Ky.), and House Committee on the Judiciary Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), joined by several Select Subcommittee Republicans, today wrote to Dr. Kristian Andersen calling on him to clarify his response to Congress that he did not act to suppress any theory about the origins of COVID-19. A recent Vanity Fair report brings into question the accuracy of Andersen’s assertion and the lawmakers call on him to appear for a transcribed interview to clarify his response.
“On February 3, 2022, we wrote you regarding apparent attempts to conceal or cover-up pertinent information regarding the origins of COVID-19, specifically the hypothesis that it leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China. On February 17, 2022, you responded to our letter and stated that you were ‘not aware of, and [were] not involved in, any effort to suppress any particular theory about the origins of SARS-CoV-2.’ Recent reporting by Vanity Fair brings into question the truthfulness of that response. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1001, ‘in any matter within the jurisdiction of the…legislative…branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully mak[ing] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation’ is a crime. We therefore invite you to correct the Committee record, in person, in a transcribed interview at your earliest convenience,” wrote the Republican lawmakers.
A recent Vanity Fair article details how Dr. Andersen offered to delete or edit a paper authored by Dr. Jesse Bloom in June 2021 about the origins of COVID-19 and how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) deleted early viral sequences of virus the behest of Chinese researchers. The Republican lawmakers have been seeking answers from Dr. Andersen and other top scientists about why they initially supported the lab leak hypothesis in early 2020 but then suddenly reversed course after speaking with Dr. Francis Collins, the former director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
“A recent exposé by Vanity Fair brings into question the accuracy of your assertion that you did not suppress any theory about the origins of COVID-19 and therefore all previous statements made to the Committee,” continued the Republican lawmakers. “Dr. Bloom’s paper was problematic for Drs. Fauci and Collins—who one year earlier had awarded you an $8.9 million dollar research grant since it explicitly advocated for a more thorough investigation of NIH, COVID-19’s origin, and did not adhere to the ‘real card-carrying…virologists[’]’ preferred narrative … Dr. Bloom said that you took issue with his research suggesting it was ‘unethical’ to analyze why the Chinese researchers requested the sequences be deleted … you then told Dr. Bloom that you could simply delete or revise the paper in a way that ‘would leave no record that this had been done’ … This incident, if true, contradicts your February 17, 2022 letter and shows that you offered to ‘suppress’ research about the origins of COVID-19 that did not fit your pre-determined narrative.”
Read the full letter to Dr. Andersen here.