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.

Thanks. Deleted at youtube again...

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.

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

Thanks for sharing. I find it very interesting. I do not fully believe either the video or this document. But, if something's being censored I want to see it... And, I knew about the worsened outcomes with flu vaccine vs. a previous coronavirus. I know a lot about this stuff, but am realizing I have more to learn...which is kind of exciting.

This, and several other bits, caught my attention...temporary restraining order against Mikovits to prohibit her from "destroying, altering, disseminating, or using trade secrets and confidential information." And, I wouldn't use Snopes as a reliable source. That's funny.

I have been discussing this episode with a good friend of mine and she wants to believe in Fauci. I can't get there, all things considered. Perhaps that's because I read Atlas Shrugged(?) Don't know. Don't care, really. I'm just going to do what I want to do. (I know...sounds scary)

Thanks for the link, number6, as it is good to get all the info in the open. This is a field I have only a limited knowledge about so the more info the better.

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.

yes, I agree. May they catch kung flu