dummies be like 'prices are high' then elect dem local leaders for decades kek
'but but but dems used to be good, remember when hillary spoke against illegal aliens?'
'so what happened?'
how are UK leaders?
if your borders are open your leaders are shit
kek
>OpenAI, ChatGPT (non-work mode)
"Yes. I went looking for Fauci's own statements, rather than statements by the CDC or other officials. I can document at least 5 separate public occasions in 2021 where Fauci gave substantially reassuring statements about COVID vaccination during pregnancy. There are probably more, so I wouldn't call five the definitive total without doing a full transcript/video archive search.
Some particularly clear examples:
Feb. 3, 2021 — AMA/JAMA interview: Fauci acknowledged pregnant women had been excluded from the original vaccine trials, but said more than 10,000 pregnant women had subsequently been vaccinated and that there had been “no red flags.”
Feb. 2021 — CBS: Asked specifically whether the vaccine was safe for pregnant women, Fauci again said there had been “no red flags”, while importantly adding that proper clinical trials in pregnant women still needed to be completed.
May 9, 2021 — ABC This Week: This one is especially strong. Fauci said there had been tens of thousands of vaccinated pregnant women, “There are no red flags. Nothing that looks like there's going to be any problem.” He concluded, “It looks good.”
May 2021 — Congressional testimony: Fauci told Congress that pregnant women weren't included in the original trials, but said roughly 115,000–120,000 pregnant women had since been vaccinated and that there was “no red flag signal at all” indicating harmful effects in pregnant women.
Sept. 2021 — televised statement: Fauci became considerably more categorical: “The vaccine is safe in women who want to get pregnant or who are pregnant. The data are very, very clear.”
There's an important progression here. Early 2021 Fauci wasn't simply saying “we proved it safe in pregnant women.” He explicitly acknowledged that pregnant women had been excluded from the original clinical trials and described the accumulating observational evidence as showing no red flags. NIH itself was still saying in mid-2021 that it lacked “robust, prospective clinical data” and was beginning a study specifically to fill those gaps.
By later 2021, however, Fauci's language had strengthened to the much less qualified “the vaccine is safe” and “the data are very, very clear.”
Why this question is suddenly interesting again
I suspect I know what prompted your question. Fauci's old government-phone texts were released just days ago, and they include a January 2021 private discussion about pregnancy.
According to the newly released messages, Fauci privately raised a theoretical concern that fever/cytokine responses after the second dose might potentially present a miscarriage risk during early pregnancy. At the same time, he also noted that more than 10,000 pregnant vaccine recipients had produced no observed safety signal.
So I would be careful with either extreme interpretation:
“Fauci secretly knew the vaccine caused miscarriages and lied” isn't established by these texts. He was discussing a theoretical possibility, not reporting evidence that vaccines were causing miscarriages.
But “Fauci never expressed any uncertainty about pregnancy safety” isn't right either. The newly released private discussion shows that he was considering possible pregnancy-specific risks during the period when the data were still limited.
And there's another useful piece of context: subsequent large studies did not find increased miscarriage or other major adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with COVID vaccination. A 2023 systematic review encompassing millions of pregnancies found no safety signal across the evaluated outcomes."
he also advised Presidents all the way back to Reagan
>OpenAI, GPT (non work mode)
"The cleanest way to understand what he has uncovered so far is to separate what Shirley personally documented from what government investigators have subsequently confirmed.
Minnesota — where he blew up
In December 2025, Shirley and local researcher David Hoch visited a group of Minnesota child-care facilities receiving substantial public funding. Shirley highlighted locations that appeared empty, inaccessible, closed, or otherwise inconsistent with the amount of Child Care Assistance Program money associated with them. His original group of facilities was associated with roughly $27 million in public payments since 2020, according to subsequent reporting.
That video became enormous — millions of YouTube views and well over 100 million views on X — and helped focus national attention on Minnesota program fraud.
But here's an important distinction for our research:
The video itself didn't prove that those day cares fraudulently billed $27 million.
Minnesota officials subsequently inspected the locations and reported finding children at most of the facilities they checked. Journalists also returned to them and found children at several, including roughly 50 children at one center.
So I wouldn't make a meme saying:
NICK SHIRLEY UNCOVERED $27 MILLION IN DAYCARE FRAUD
yet.
A defensible version would be:
Shirley identified ~$27 million in taxpayer payments to facilities he argued warranted investigation.
That's considerably different.
But then something significant happened
The investigation didn't simply disappear after Minnesota disputed Shirley's conclusions.
In April 2026 federal agents executed search warrants at about 20 Minneapolis child-care centers as part of an ongoing suspected-fraud investigation.
That's interesting because it means two things can simultaneously be true:
Shirley's initial evidence did not establish that the specific facilities were committing fraud, while there really were serious enough fraud concerns in the broader system for federal investigators to conduct major searches.
That distinction will probably matter a lot when we eventually make a timeline.
Shirley's second Minnesota investigation
He subsequently moved into non-emergency medical transportation — companies receiving Medicaid money for transporting patients to medical appointments.
Shirley reported finding companies at addresses where the apparent operation didn't match what he expected from the amount of government money flowing through them. He estimated roughly another $16 million connected with the transportation/daycare operations he examined. Again, that's Shirley's allegation/estimate, rather than $16 million already adjudicated as stolen money.
Then he went to California
This is probably the part you may have missed.
By March 2026 Shirley was doing essentially the same kind of field investigation in California, but expanding beyond day cares into hospice/health-care providers and Medicaid-funded operations.
He visits addresses, compares what physically exists there against public records showing government payments, asks neighbors/workers questions, and looks for things such as apparently inactive businesses or unusually large public reimbursements.
He has alleged extremely large irregularities there as well. One later interview described his California findings as approximately $170 million associated with operations he investigated.
Again I'd put a giant research asterisk beside that:
$170M associated with suspicious entities ≠ $170M proven stolen.
That's exactly the kind of gigantic-number problem we've talked about before — once a number gets into a meme, people naturally read it as the amount of proven fraud even when it actually represents payments being questioned.
And there is a much bigger pre-existing Minnesota fraud story
This is where Shirley's work sometimes gets mashed together with something he didn't uncover.
Minnesota already had major federal fraud investigations underway, most famously Feeding Our Future, involving fraudulent claims for federally funded children's meals. DOJ had been prosecuting that scheme long before Shirley's December 2025 video.
Attorney General Pam Bondi later said federal authorities had charged 98 people in Minnesota-related fraud investigations, with more than 60 convictions at that point.
Those convictions shouldn't simply be credited to Shirley.
What Shirley arguably accomplished was something different: he took an existing complicated government-fraud story and physically went to addresses associated with public money, put them on camera, and made ordinary people ask “what exactly are taxpayers paying for here?”
That's why his reporting had such an enormous political effect even before every allegation was proven or disproven.
So our scoreboard right now"
"I'd classify it like this:
Shirley finding/claim Status
Minnesota entities received millions in public funds Documented
Some facilities looked inactive/empty during his visits Documented on video
~$27M was stolen by those day cares Not established
Minnesota had major existing public-program fraud Established
Authorities subsequently expanded investigations Established
Federal agents searched ~20 child-care centers in April Established
Shirley identified ~$16M of additional Minnesota fraud Allegation / investigation
California entities he investigated received very large public payments Documentable from records; individual cases vary
Shirley uncovered ~$170M in California theft His allegation, not a proven loss total
“Billion-dollar fraud” Much broader claim; definitely not something I'd label proven from Shirley's work alone
And there's another reason to keep the pencil rather than the ink pen out: just six days ago there was fresh national reporting about expanding federal fraud investigations.
This is actually a great example of the research method we've been talking about: don't decide at the beginning whether “Shirley proved everything” or “Shirley was debunked.” Keep separate columns for Shirley allegation → public records → state response → federal investigation → charges → conviction/acquittal.
Then the timeline gets stronger every time another piece lands."