COVID-19
Wenstrup Releases Francis Collins’ House Testimony

From the Brownstone Institute
BY
Wenstrup Releases Former NIH Director Francis Collins’ Transcript, Highlights Key Takeaways in New Memo
WASHINGTON — Today, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) released the transcript from Dr. Francis Collins’ transcribed interview. Dr. Collins helped lead the government’s Covid-19 pandemic response as the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) until his resignation at the end of 2021. In conjunction with the transcript, the Select Subcommittee also released a new staff memo that highlights the key takeaways from Dr. Collins’ transcribed interview. The memo can be found here.
The full transcript can be found here. Below are important exchanges from Dr. Collins’ transcribed interview:
The hypothesis that the Covid-19 pandemic was the result of a lab leak or lab-related accident is not a conspiracy theory. Despite previously disagreeing with the lab-leak theory — both in public and in private — Dr. Collins testified that the lab-leak hypothesis is indeed not a conspiracy theory.
Majority Counsel: “All it’s calling for is a “yes” or “no.” Is the possibility of a lab leak a conspiracy theory?”
Dr. Collins: “You have to define what you mean by a lab leak.”
Majority Counsel: “Putting aside de novo, the possibility of a laboratory or research-related accident, a researcher doing something in a lab, getting infected with a virus, and then sparking the pandemic. Is that scenario a conspiracy theory”?
Dr. Collins: “Not at this point.”
Majority Counsel: “We have talked about this an awful lot, I think I know the answer to the question, but I want to ask it. Is the origin of Covid-19 still unsettled science?”
Dr. Collins: “Yes.”
The “6-feet apart” social distancing guidance that federal public health officials endorsed was likely not based on any science or data. Dr. Collins agreed with Dr. Fauci that he has not seen any evidence to support the “6-feet apart” directive — which was promoted by public health officials and caused widespread economic and social damage to Americans.
Majority Counsel: “Moving on to social distancing and the various regulations surrounding that. On March 22, 2020, the CDC issued guidance describing social distancing to include remaining out congregant settings, avoiding mass gatherings, and maintaining a distance of approximately six feet from others when possible. We asked Dr. Fauci where the six feet came from and he said it kind of just appeared, is the quote. Do you recall science or evidence that supported the six-feet distance?”
Dr. Collins: “I do not.”
Majority Counsel: “Is that I do not recall or I do not see any evidence supporting six feet?”
Dr. Collins: “I did not see evidence, but I’m not sure I would have been shown evidence at that point.”
Majority Counsel: “Since then, it has been an awfully large topic. Have you seen any evidence since then supporting six feet?”
Dr. Collins: “No.”
NIH often lacks the necessary subject matter expertise to ensure US taxpayer funds are spent safely. Concerningly, Dr. Collins was unaware of any NIH policy that ensures foreign laboratories comply with US standards and are not at odds with U.S. national interests.
Majority Counsel: “Thank you. We’ve asked a number of people regarding the vetting or certifying process of foreign labs that receive U.S. dollars. Do you know what that process is?”
Dr. Collins: “I do not.”
Majority Counsel: “To your knowledge, does NIH certify foreign labs that receive U.S. dollars?”
Dr. Collins: “I don’t know that.”
Majority Counsel: “Again, what we’re trying to figure out is if, like, you get a proposal that has a foreign lab on it, if the NIH would do all the work themselves, or if they would call the State Department, or if they would call some other department to try to determine if that foreign lab is reputable.”
Dr. Collins: “I don’t know.”
The Trump Administration led the charge to rightfully terminate and later suspend EcoHealth Alliance, Inc.’s grant in April 2020. Dr. Collins testified that he supported every enforcement action suggested by the Trump administration and executed by the NIH.
Majority Counsel: “Moving into 2020. Before we start with individual letters, we asked Dr. Lauer and he testified that he would not sign or send a letter that he disagreed with. Do you have any reason to doubt that assertion?”
Dr. Collins: “No.”
Majority Counsel: “Do you agree with every enforcement action the NIH took against EcoHealth?”
Dr. Collins: “Yes.”
Dr. Collins claims that Dr. Fauci invited him to participate in the infamous February 1, 2020 phone call that allegedly “prompted” the public narrative that Covid-19 originated from nature and that vilified the lab-leak hypothesis.
This testimony directly contradicts earlier statements made by Dr. Fauci.
Majority Counsel: “How were you made aware of this call?”
Dr. Collins: “I was, I think – again, it’s four years ago – initially informed by Dr. Fauci that the call was happening. And then, I think I got this email forwarded about what the agenda was going to be from Dr. Farrar, who was clearly the person organizing the call.”
Majority Counsel: “Did Dr. Fauci ask you to join the call?”
Dr. Collins: “Yes.”
There we have it. Ex-director NIH Francis Collins had NO data and has not seen any data to support the social distancing edicts from HHS.
The transcript itself documents that Director Collins had evidence that masking would harm children.
From the transcript:
Q: In the realm of masking, obviously masks became this big to-do during the pandemic. One of the specific aspects that we are interested in is the science and data that supported it for children. So the WHO recommended against masking children less than five because masks are, I’m quoting, not in the overall interest of the child, and against children 6 to 11 from wearing masks because of again, quoting, the potential impact of wearing a mask on learning and psychological development. The United States recommended masking kids as young as two, so directly contradicted the WHO’s recommendation on that.
Do you recall what science or data backed up that recommendation?
Collins: I have no knowledge of that.
Q: Okay. There are now studies coming out regarding learning loss from both school closures and childhood mask wearing — for masks specifically, kids not being able to see adults form words and things like that and it’s causing speech issues. Are you aware of those issues?
Collins: In a general way, yes.
Q: Do you agree that there’s learning loss and other unintended consequences of mask-wearing?
Collins: I have to depend on the experts who assess those things who have evidence, they say, that that’s the case.
This is all the evidence required to conclusively demonstrate that the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) needs a complete overhaul.
Republished from the author’s Substack
COVID-19
New Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility

Here’s what the numbers reveal, and what it could mean for humanity
What was once dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” now has hard data behind it.
A new peer-reviewed study out of the Czech Republic has uncovered a disturbing trend: in 2022, women vaccinated against COVID-19 had 33% FEWER successful conceptions per 1,000 women compared to those who were unvaccinated.
A “successful conception” means a pregnancy that led to a live birth nine months later.
The study wasn’t small. It analyzed data from 1.3 million women aged 18 to 39.
Here’s what the numbers reveal, and what it could mean for humanity.
First, let’s talk about the study.
It was published by Manniche and colleagues in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal respected for its focus on patient safety and pharmacovigilance.
The study was conducted from January 2021 to December 2023 and examined 1.3 million women aged 18–39. By the end of 2021, approximately 70% of them had received at least one COVID-19 vaccination, with 96% of the vaccinated cohort having received either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.
By 2022, a stark difference was clear.
The vaccinated cohort averaged around 4 successful conceptions per 1,000 women per month.
That’s a staggering 33% LESS than the 6 per 1,000 seen in the unvaccinated group.
This means that for every 2 vaccinated women who successfully conceived and delivered a baby, 3 unvaccinated women did the same.
In 2022, unvaccinated women were 1.5 times MORE likely to have a successful conception.
Again, that’s a conception that led to a live birth nine months later.
The authors did not jump to the conclusion that their study proved causation. They cited that other factors may have played a role, such as self-selection bias
However, the researchers noted that self-selection bias does not explain the timing and scale of the observed drop in fertility.
Moreover, birth rates in the Czech Republic dropped from 1.83 per 1,000 women in 2021 to 1.37 in 2024, adding further evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines may be contributing to the decline in fertility.
That downward trend, the researchers argue, supports the hypothesis that something beyond individual decision-making may be affecting conception rates.
As such, they argue that the study’s results warrant a closer and more thorough examination of the impact of mass vaccination.
If this study holds true, and vaccinated women are really much less likely to have successful conceptions, the implications for humanity are massive.
Millions of babies could be missing each year as a result of COVID vaccination, and recent data from Europe and beyond already point to a deeply disturbing trend.
NOTE: Europe experienced a sharper decline in births than usual from 2021 to 2023.
Live births fell from 4.09 million in 2021 to 3.67 million in 2023, marking a 10.3% decline in just two years.
The new Czech study adds to growing evidence that COVID vaccines may be contributing to a dramatic decline in fertility, just as many feared all along.
As Elon Musk warns, “If there are no humans, there’s no humanity.”
Whether the shots are the cause or not, the trend is real—and it’s accelerating.
It’s time to stop dismissing the signals and start investigating the cause.
Thanks for reading. I hope this report gave you real value. This is a critically important topic that deserves attention.
If you appreciate my work and want to help keep it going, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
99% of readers get this content for free. But just $5/month from the 1% keeps it flowing for everyone else.
If this work matters to you, this is the best way to support it.
Be the 1% who makes it possible.
Catch the rest of today’s biggest headlines at VigilantFox.com.
COVID-19
Ontario man launches new challenge against province’s latest attempt to ban free expression on roadside billboards

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that Ontario resident George Katerberg has launched a legal challenge against the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for banning roadside billboards with social or political messages. Mr. Katerberg believes that the Ministry’s policies go too far and undermine the freedom of expression of all Ontarians.
This case goes back to March 2024, when Mr. Katerberg, a retired HVAC technician, rented a billboard on Highway 17 near Thessalon, Ontario, that featured images of public health officials and politicians alongside a message critical of their statements about vaccines.
After the Ministry rejected his proposed billboard several times on the grounds it promoted hatred, a constitutional challenge was launched with lawyers provided by the Justice Centre. Mr. Katerberg’s lawyers argued that the Ministry’s position was unreasonable, and that it did not balance Charter rights with the purposes of relevant legislation.
The Ministry later admitted that the sign did not violate hate speech guidelines and agreed to reconsider erecting the billboard.
However, in April 2025, the Ministry quietly amended its policy manual to restrict signs along “bush highways” to those only promoting goods, services, or authorized community events.
The new guidelines are sweeping and comprehensive, barring any messaging that the Ministry claims could “demean, denigrate, or disparage one or more identifiable persons, groups of persons, firms, organizations, industrial or commercial activities, professions, entities, products or services…”
Relying on this new policy, the Ministry once again denied Mr. Katerberg’s revised billboard.
Constitutional lawyer Chris Fleury explains, “By amending the Highway Corridor Management Manual to effectively prohibit signage that promotes political and social causes, the Ministry of Transportation has turned Mr. Katerberg’s fight to raise his sign into a fight on behalf of all Ontarians who wish to express support for a political or social cause.”
No date has yet been assigned for a hearing on this matter.
-
COVID-191 day ago
Ontario man launches new challenge against province’s latest attempt to ban free expression on roadside billboards
-
Energy2 days ago
This Canada Day, Celebrate Energy Renewal
-
COVID-1910 hours ago
New Peer-Reviewed Study Affirms COVID Vaccines Reduce Fertility
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta Next Takes A Look At Alberta Provincial Police Force
-
Business6 hours ago
Ottawa Funded the China Ferry Deal—Then Pretended to Oppose It
-
MAiD8 hours ago
Canada’s euthanasia regime is not health care, but a death machine for the unwanted
-
International1 day ago
President Xi Skips Key Summit, Adding Fuel to Ebbing Power Theories
-
Alberta1 day ago
Canadian Oil Sands Production Expected to Reach All-time Highs this Year Despite Lower Oil Prices