Fauci’s secret Ebola records are chilling: What else is being kept from us?

10 0

The recently released records of Anthony Fauci are explosive. They date back to 2016 and to experiments conducted by the US military research institute USAMRIID at Fort Detrick. Primates were exposed to an artificially generated aerosol containing Ebola viruses – an experimental exposure that delivered the virus deep into the lungs and, according to the documents, did not correspond to the natural route of infection. The research was funded by none other than Fauci’s own agency, the NIAID, which, according to the released documents, was also involved in the planning.

Mike Benz, former high-ranking official of the US State Department and current head of the Foundation for Freedom Online, writes on X:


The precise wording is important: The researchers did not genetically turn Ebola into an “airborne virus.” They aerosolized the virus for the animal experiment, causing the animals to inhale it. Just the News also points out that this does not constitute a gain of function in the strict scientific sense. But then came a result that obviously alarmed Fauci.

In his notes, he recorded that the animals vaccinated against Ebola showed more severe lung inflammation after aerosol exposure than unvaccinated animals. At the same time, he wrote that almost all the animals died after aerosol exposure. The experiments were therefore intended to clarify whether the observed difference was actually reproducible and relevant.

Fauci wrote that the idea that the vaccine could cause harm was a major concern. And then comes perhaps the most explosive part of the story.

When Fauci learned about the experiments and the sharing of the results, he wrote about the researchers at USAMRIID: “What idiots.”

His next sentence was even clearer: “This should have been a secret experiment that should never have been carried out in the first place.”

According to his records, Fauci was also concerned that the results could damage confidence in the Ebola vaccination programs in the African countries affected by outbreaks at the time.

Not only the experiment – the public also became a problem

This is precisely where the story takes on a dimension that goes far beyond a failed animal experiment.

Fauci didn’t simply write that the experiment was scientifically unsound. According to the published documents, he believed that such research, or rather its sensitive results, should have been kept secret or classified. At the same time, he was concerned about the potential impact of the findings on public trust in vaccines.

This raises a legitimate and far-reaching question: If scientific findings could undermine public trust in a medical procedure, should the public still be informed? Fauci’s own records at least show that this consideration did indeed play a role at the time.

Particularly noteworthy: Apparently, Fauci himself was initially unaware that his own agency, NIAID, had funded the aerosol studies in question. A few days later, he internally demanded complete information about the collaboration with the military and threatened consequences if any staff members withheld any information.

The irony is hard to miss: Fauci demanded internally “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, while at the same time believing that the controversial experiment should have been classified.

What do we only learn ten years later?

Senator Rand Paul, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, interprets the documents even more critically. For him, they reveal a system in which risky research was not consistently prevented, but rather, problematic results were to be shielded from the public.

One aspect is undeniable: In 2026, the public learned details from Fauci’s private records about high-risk Ebola experiments from 2016, their funding by NIAID, and Fauci’s desire for secrecy.

And that raises a question that goes far beyond Anthony Fauci: If such information only comes to light a decade later through investigations by the US Senate – what don’t we know about other government-funded high-risk experiments to this day?

This is not a claim about unknown experiments. It is a question of transparency, oversight, and who decides which scientific risks and results the public is allowed to know.

Especially after the experiences of recent years, this question is anything but trivial.

 

yogaesoteric
October 9, 2026

 

Also available in: Română

You might also like More from author
Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More