RedState⁠95%

Rand Paul’s Bill Gates File Dump Shows a Q Clearance and Fauci Editing His Pandemic Playbook ⁠34%

By Ben Smith⁠69%

7/31/2026, 2:41:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Negativity Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 36.4% saturation with 277 hits. Analysis detected 1,240 faulty-reasoning hits from 762 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠34% (18,815 of 28,464 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.10% of the article peer group.

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Rand Paul (R-KY) released 1,375 pages of records Friday detailing Bill Gates' unusual access to some of the most powerful figures and institutions inside the federal government. 
The documents confirm Gates held a Department of Energy (DOE) "Q" security clearance for more than seven years. 
They also show Anthony Fauci editing Gates' pandemic book, then-National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins privately questioning whether Gates was "going rogue," and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) giving the Gates Foundation a private briefing on military biological research programs. 
A June 30 letter from DOE to Paul confirmed the clearance "was reciprocally granted on June 11, 2014, and subsequently terminated on December 6, 2021," meaning it was based on a clearance originally issued by another, unnamed federal agency. 
DOE describes a Q authorization as comparable to a Top Secret clearance, permitting access to Restricted Data and certain categories of special nuclear material. 
The letter does not explain why Gates needed the authorization, and it asked the committee to keep the information confidential and "not for public release.” 
Gates' access to Fauci was considerably more personal. 
In April 2020, he sent Fauci his "Pandemic Innovation" memo for review before it went to the World Health Organization (WHO) and policymakers. 
In January 2022, he sent Fauci a prepublication draft of "How to Prevent the Next Pandemic," asking specifically for his thoughts on Chapter 9, his proposed plan for the world. 
Paul put it plainly: Gates had a private editor inside NIH. 
Fauci returned the manuscript five days later with tracked edits, and disclosed he had quietly passed the full book to NIH colleague David Morens. 
"I gave the manuscript in close confidence to a trusted colleague who destroyed it after reading it. 
His name is Dr. 
David Morens and he has read the entire book and provided comments on every chapter." 
Fauci praised the book's "crisp and clear messages" and attached both his edits and Morens' chapter-by-chapter notes. 
The documents also capture NIH Dir. 
Collins' frustration with Gates in May 2018. 
After Gates met with President Trump and publicly promoted additional spending on a universal flu vaccine, including a $12 million personal commitment, Collins wrote Fauci questioning whether Gates was acting unilaterally. 
"Surely he knows about all the work that NIH has been doing? 
And how could his promised $12M add much to the much larger investment NIAID is making? 
Is this coordinated in some way, or is Bill going rogue?" 
Collins added that Gates had apparently told Trump the country needed between $5 billion and $6 billion to prepare for a global flu pandemic. 
Fauci replied that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) already had $104 million in its budget for a universal flu vaccine and could absorb between $150 million and $200 million annually. 
Around the same time, Collins sent NIH officials an urgent request for a full accounting of the agency's financial ties to the Gates Foundation. 
"For reasons I can't currently explain," he wrote. 
The answers revealed a sprawling relationship: joint vaccine studies, Gates Foundation funding for NIH components, and parallel investments around NIH-Gates working groups. 
One official acknowledged some of the funding was "not easily sourced.” 
The final pages document another door open to the foundation. 
On May 3, 2022, DARPA's Biological Technologies Office convened a 90-minute session at agency headquarters for Gates Foundation representatives, covering four military biological threat programs: INTERCEPT, PREEMPT, Friend or Foe, and ReVector. 
"PREEMPT's stated aim is targeting viruses in animals before they emerge in humans," Sen. 
Paul wrote. 
Its slides included work on transmissible vaccines for Lassa and Ebola, and the final page said researchers had generated a scalable transmissible Lassa vaccine with an internal "off switch," listed for potential deployment in Sierra Leone, Guinea, and other West African countries. 
The documents don't establish that Gates used one channel to obtain the others, and the DARPA Lassa slide was marked approved for public release. 
Collins later made his priorities clear. 
Days after announcing his resignation in October 2021, he wrote Melinda French Gates: "It has been a privilege to work with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation over these 12 years, and I am glad to have had the chance to bring our global health efforts even closer together than ever." 
No private citizen should have that kind of reach into the federal government. 
Paul's document release ensures someone will have to explain how it happened. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 36.4%Ben Smith: 3.5%RedState: 6.4%Confirmation Bias36.4%This article: 5.1%Ben Smith: 1.7%RedState: 0.7%Anchoring Bias5.1%This article: 10.5%Ben Smith: 2.8%RedState: 3.3%Availability Heuristic10.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.7%RedState: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Ben Smith: 1.4%RedState: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias5.5%This article: 15.4%Ben Smith: 9.3%RedState: 8.6%Framing Effect15.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.9%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.7%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 0.3%Status Quo Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.6%RedState: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Ben Smith: 1.3%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias3.0%This article: 13.0%Ben Smith: 9.8%RedState: 13.0%Negativity Bias13.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.7%RedState: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.3%RedState: 4.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Ben Smith: 0.9%RedState: 1.8%Halo Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.8%Ben Smith: 1.0%RedState: 1.1%Recency Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.5%RedState: 6.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 2.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.3%RedState: 2.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 1.4%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 2.1%False Dilemma1.4%This article: 1.3%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 1.2%Slippery Slope1.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.7%Ben Smith: 5.0%RedState: 9.1%Hasty Generalization7.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.7%RedState: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.9%Ben Smith: 4.0%RedState: 7.7%Appeal to Emotion13.9%This article: 2.1%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.7%Begging the Question2.1%This article: 3.1%Ben Smith: 2.1%RedState: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.7%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.5%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 1.1%Burden of Proof10.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.0%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 2.5%Anecdotal2.0%This article: 1.7%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%No True Scotsman1.7%This article: 9.1%Ben Smith: 1.2%RedState: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.2%Ben Smith: 1.3%RedState: 2.3%Unattributed Quote2.2%This article: 1.4%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection1.4%This article: 4.5%Ben Smith: 8.4%RedState: 19.3%Biased Writer Voice4.5%This article: 1.7%Ben Smith: 2.4%RedState: 4.3%Indoctrination1.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 7.5%RedState: 14.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 3.0%RedState: 3.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

762 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers15%attributed speech647writer words
Selected voice

Rand Paul

44%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words22% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Quote-first Misdirection+44.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Rand Paul: 44.0%44.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%Rand Paul: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%Rand Paul: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Rand Paul: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.