Researcher accused of being “bought” by Fauci

Updated April 3, 2023, Published March 22, 2023 – By Editorial staff
Anthony Fauci and Kristian Andersen.

Early on during the covid crisis, researcher Kristian Andersen stuck his neck out when he pointed out that the coronavirus did not seem to be of natural origin – but rather gave the impression of being artificially created.

However, after talks with the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci, the scientist quickly came out and condemned speculation about human involvement as "conspiracy theories", leading Andersen to be accused of being "bought out" – partly because government funding for his research increased after he changed his mind on the issue.

Kristian Andersen, a researcher and professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, emailed US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Anthony Fauci on the 31st of January 2020, warning that there were many indications that the virus did not come from any animal at all.

"You have to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) appear to be engineered... Eddie (Holmes), Bob (Garry), Mike (Ferguson) and myself all believe that the genome is inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory," he wrote at the time.

The next day, Fauci organized a conference call with 11 virologists from across the world – including Kristian Andersen, who less than 24 hours earlier had sent the email stating that the virus appeared to be engineered. However, Fauci's boss, health department head Robert Kadlec, was not invited to the conference.

It is not known what was said during the conversation, but four days after the conference took place, Mr Andersen suddenly made a 180-degree turn and went public to warn against conspiracy theories about man-made covid – despite the fact that he himself had just warned about the same thing.

"The main conspiracy theories circulating at the moment are that the virus is somehow engineered ... and that is demonstrably false," Mr Andersen declared at the time.

In four days, Andersen changed his mind about the origin of the virus. Photo: Prachatai/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Financial motives?

A few weeks later, Kristian Andersen and three other participants from the video conference with Fauci authored a scientific article published in Nature Medicine, claiming, among other things, that "our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory product". According to The Federalist, Andersen also offered Fauci to edit the article before publication.

In their 2021 article, The Federalist points out that the information from Fauci's email indicates that he was aware of scientists' concerns about man-made covid as early as 1 February 2020. Yet he chose to keep this information secret from his superiors and the American people, people who speculated that the virus had leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan were dismissed as conspiracy theorists and were subjected to character assassination.

In an interview with the New York Times, Mr Andersen explains his reversal by saying that his internal warnings to Mr Fauci were based on "limited data" and "preliminary analyses" – which he soon revised as more information became available.

However, a report by researcher and epidemiologist Andrew G Huff – former vice-president of the EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based group that has worked closely with the notorious Wuhan lab – suggests that it may have been purely financial motives that caused Andersen to change his mind on the issue.

"Kristian Andersen, who in late January wrote to Fauci expressing his concern that SARS-Co-V-2 contained sequences that appeared to be man-made, led a group that published an article in Nature on 17 March 2020, supporting the theory that the virus is transmitted from animals to humans. Following this, Andersen received a generous grant from the National Institutes of Health. "At this point, we have no way of knowing whether this was a form of quid pro quo, but it can at least be concluded that this does not pass the 'smell test'", he writes.

He emphasizes that the National Institutes of Health, which funds medical research in the US, "dramatically increased" its funding for Andersen's research after he changed his mind on the origin of COVID-19 and started arguing for a natural origin instead of an artificial one.

Kristian Andersen's funding, according to Huff.

Renewed attention

Huff's report was released in September 2022 – but the issue of whether there may have been financial incentives for scientists to revise their position on the origin of the virus has been widely publicised again. This is due to the fact that an account belonging to the Libertarian Party in the US has drawn attention to the issue and refers to documents that support the theory.

The man on the left is Kristian Andersen, a British scientist who emailed Fauci 1/31/20, saying the virus looks lab-made. The man on the right is Kristian Andersen, the guy who Fauci called on 2/1/20 and ordered to publicly say it wasn’t lab-made, which he did. Fauci then gave… https://t.co/UDzIhNb37k pic.twitter.com/LY7ttS23kJ

— Mises Caucus (@LPMisesCaucus) March 1, 2023

Many interpret these findings as an example of the fact that researchers are primarily loyal to their financiers - and that Fauci's behaviour is a further indication that the US was directly involved in the development of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. At the same time, Huff's compilation is also questioned as sloppy, pointing out that Andersen is presented as a British researcher – even though he is Danish, and that it cannot currently be proven that his change of opinion is a result of increased funding.

TNT is truly independent!

We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.

Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…

Powerful new antibiotic discovered by accident

Published November 6, 2025 – By Editorial staff

Researchers have discovered an antibiotic that is more than 100 times stronger than previously thought – by studying a process that has been known for at least fifty years. The discovery could be a breakthrough in the fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Antibiotics were discovered in 1928 by Alexander Fleming, but widespread use of the drug only began during World War II. Today, large amounts of antibiotics are used annually worldwide, which has led to higher resistance to the drug.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) means that bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites develop resistance to drugs, including antibiotics. It arises primarily through incorrect and excessive use of antibiotics, and is a problem that is increasing globally. It is therefore considered one of the most serious threats to global health.

Now researchers at the University of Warwick in the UK and Monash University in Australia have made an unexpected discovery while studying how the bacterium Streptomyces coelicolor produces the old antibiotic methylenomycin A. This bacterium has been one of the most studied in antibiotic research since the 1950s.

In simple terms, when cells produce chemical substances, they go through several intermediate stages before the final product is ready – rather like baking, where ingredients are mixed in a certain order. The researchers had the idea of testing these intermediate stages for antimicrobial activity. It turned out that one of them is significantly more powerful than the final product itself.

Methylenomycin A was originally discovered 50 years ago and while it has been synthesized several times, no-one appears to have tested the synthetic intermediates for antimicrobial activity!, says Professor Greg Challis at the University of Warwick, in a press release.

One hundred times more powerful

This intermediate stage, called pre-methylenomycin C lactone, proved to be a very powerful antibiotic – in fact one hundred times more effective than methylenomycin A against dangerous bacteria. It worked particularly well against bacteria that cause MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus infection) and VRE (vancomycin-resistant enterococci) – two of healthcare's worst nightmares.

Furthermore, the bacteria appeared to have great difficulty developing resistance to the new antibiotic. The discovery opens up a completely new avenue for antibiotic research, and the researchers have already developed a new method for producing the antibiotic in larger quantities, with preclinical trials as the next step.

This discovery suggests a new paradigm for antibiotic discovery. By identifying and testing intermediates in the pathways to diverse natural compounds, we may find potent new antibiotics, says Professor Challis.

“Eco-friendly” cattle feed may have negative climate impact

The exaggerated climate crisis

Published November 3, 2025 – By Editorial staff
Algae have been presented as "the solution" to methane emissions from cows, but the entire production chain paints a completely different picture.

Algae in cattle feed has been presented as a breakthrough in the fight against methane emissions from livestock. But new Swedish research shows that the real climate benefit may be minimal – or even negative. Energy-intensive production and long-distance transport risk canceling out any environmental gains achieved in the barn.

As climate alarmism has risen, cows have increasingly been accused of being real climate villains due to the methane emissions that occur when they burp and pass gas – which is why various schemes have emerged to solve this so-called problem. In 2022, for example, Prince Charles praised the British startup company Zelp for inventing a mask for cows to wear that would convert methane gas into water vapor. The cow mask is still under development but may likely become part of British cows' daily life.

However, the most talked-about solution has been the methane-reducing supplements implemented in cattle feed. The best known is Bovaer, which the Swedish-Danish dairy cooperative Arla has particularly been criticized for using, with both Danes and Swedes calling for a boycott of the company. Due to the strong criticism, the company is planning further studies to see how it affects cows' health, as well as the meat and milk.

Algae has been described as climate-smart

Another supplement being tested for cows is algae, which according to some studies has been shown to reduce methane emissions by between 30 and 90 percent. Now, however, research from KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm has shown that these figures may be highly misleading.

Adding algae to cattle feed has been overestimated as a quick solution to livestock emissions, says Jean-Baptiste Thomas, researcher at the Division of Water and Environmental Engineering at KTH, in a press release.

To measure climate impact, one must take into account how these algae are produced, processed, and how far they are transported. The algae are often dried or refined, which involves energy-intensive methods such as freeze-drying. Furthermore, there is of course an environmental impact when fossil fuels are used, Thomas argues.

Sometimes there is no climate benefit at all

The most common algae used is Asparagopsis, which has the greatest effect on methane emissions, but it is a tropical species. This means long-distance transport all the way to Sweden. Growing it locally in Sweden is not a good alternative either, as it would require artificial, energy-intensive land-based cultivation systems since the species is invasive.

The real climate benefit is much smaller – and sometimes there is no benefit at all, or it can even be worse, says Thomas.

Thomas still believes that algae can be of some use as a supplement in cattle feed, as long as the environmental impact is low. For example, it could be interesting to use by-products instead, but he emphasizes that algae alone cannot "transform the climate footprint of livestock". This study is the first to look at the entire chain for algae feed, something that surprises the researchers.

It's quite surprising, considering how much attention the issue has received for almost a decade. Perhaps it shows how eager we are to find quick technical solutions to the climate crisis, says Thomas.

Increased cancer risk linked to covid vaccines

The criticized covid vaccinations

Published November 1, 2025 – By Editorial staff
The overall risk of cancer diagnosis increased by 27 percent compared to those who had not received the COVID-19 vaccine.

A comprehensive South Korean study shows a correlation between covid vaccines and increased cancer incidence, particularly prostate cancer and lung cancer.

However, the researchers are cautious in their conclusions and careful to point out that the statistical correlations do not constitute proof of any causal relationship.

In the study, which has been published in Biomarker Research, researchers examined data from 8,407,849 people between 2021 and 2023, drawn from the Korean National Health Insurance Database. The participants were divided into two groups depending on whether they had received covid vaccines or not. The aim was to examine both the actual occurrence (incidence) of cancer and subsequent cancer risks one year after vaccination.

The results show that there were indications of increased risks for various cancer types one year after receiving any form of covid vaccine, compared to those who had not received it. The overall risk of cancer diagnosis increased by 27 percent compared to those who had not received covid vaccines.

Regarding specific cancer forms, the most pronounced risk increases were seen for prostate cancer, which increased by 69 percent, followed by lung cancer which increased by 53 percent. Furthermore, the risk of thyroid cancer increased by 35 percent and stomach cancer by 34 percent. Colorectal cancer showed a risk increase of 28 percent, while breast cancer increased by 20 percent.

These risk increases applied to diagnoses made within one year after vaccination, regardless of whether mRNA or non-mRNA vaccines were used. However, it is unclear which covid vaccines were included in the study.

Statistical correlations

The researchers emphasize, however, that the study's results do not provide evidence that covid vaccines cause cancer, but rather that these are "statistical correlations".

One possible explanation could be, for example, that covid-vaccinated individuals have likely undergone more medical check-ups and screenings, which increases the chance of detecting cancer early compared to those who have not received covid vaccines. However, one cannot say with certainty what causes this, only that there is a difference depending on covid vaccination status.

Study: Testosterone does not control men’s economic risk-taking

Published October 25, 2025 – By Editorial staff
The researchers tested nine different economic behaviors – from risk-taking to generosity – but found no difference between the groups.

Testosterone has no effect on men's economic decisions, according to the largest study to date in this field. One thousand Canadian men who received testosterone made the same decisions as those who received a placebo – a result that challenges previous research.

In the study, published in the scientific journal PNAS, 1,000 Canadian men aged 18 to 45 participated. The men were randomly assigned to receive either an 11-milligram dose of testosterone or a placebo in a double-blind study. Once the hormone began to take effect, the men participated in various experiments to measure risk-taking, generosity, competitiveness, and fairness preferences.

A total of nine different outcomes were measured, and the results showed that both groups behaved on average in the same way, regardless of whether they received testosterone or placebo – across all outcomes.

Our results provide strong evidence that short-term increases in testosterone have no meaningful impact on men's economic decisions, says Anna Dreber Almenberg, professor at the Department of Economics at the Stockholm School of Economics in Sweden, in a press release.

Largest study in the field

Previous studies have suggested that testosterone can influence the propensity to take risks or compete in economic situations, but this study shows that this is not necessarily the case. This study is also the largest of its kind in the field, with ten to twenty times more men participating than in previous studies.

However, the researchers emphasize that they only tested one dose and one time perspective in the men, which means that other possible effects could occur at different doses or time perspectives. Women were also not included in the trial.

The study is important because it directly challenges the idea that short-term fluctuations in testosterone levels explain why some people take greater economic risks, reject unfair offers, or act more competitively in life, says Justin M. Carré, professor at the Faculty of Arts and Science at Nipissing University in Canada.