Anita Desikan Melts Down Under Intense Grilling [Watch]


Anita Desikan didn’t know what she was in for, when she got called in front of the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus. Jim Jordan was well prepared for her testimony on Friday, April 29. Her business cards say she’s a “senior analyst” at the Center for Science and Democracy. Any think-tank organization with the word “democracy” in it is guaranteed to slant left. Jordan got out the razor blade of logic and verbally sliced her to ribbons.

Desikan destroyed on stand

Passionately conservative Ohio lawmaker Jim Jordan was well prepared for Anita Desikan when she came to pay his committee a visit. He paid close attention to what she had to say, then brutally used it against her in relentless interrogation. The democracy expert was there to talk about “scientific integrity violations.

Addressing them is crucial, she insists. If they aren’t taken care of right away, it “erodes trust” in the very concept of “public institution.” Oh, really? Jordan inquired. Then made her fess up that it’s really a one-sided arrangement. Democrats can do no wrong.

Jordan began by staking Desikan to her spot from the first sentence. “CDC Director Rochelle Walensky claims that the vaccinated cannot contract or transmit the Covid-19 virus. Why hasn’t that statement been classified as a scientific integrity violation?” She sat there and blinked like a fish.

Dr. Desikan, how many scientific integrity violations did you say you found during the Trump administration?” That was one she had an answer for. “204,” she quipped. “And and how many were relative to Covid?” Another easy one, “29.” That’s where things went south for her.

Have you found any scientific integrity violations with the Biden administration?” Well, they haven’t been around long, she hedged. “The Biden administration obviously is still ongoing but yes we have found at least one.” It wasn’t Covid related. That’s funny, Jordan mused.

None related to Covid. None? So, when Dr. Walensky said that the vaccinated can’t get the virus that wasn’t a scientific integrity violation?” Apparently not to Ms. Desikan. “My organization has a specific definition for how we define an attack on science. You can see more in my written testimony on that…

We’ll get you more in writing

Jordan was going to hear that phrase a lot over the next few minutes. He kept hammering. “She’s the head of CDC and she said a statement that is absolutely 100 percent positively false. She said the vaccinated could not get the virus. She actually said the vaccinated couldn’t transmit the virus. We know both those statements are false and you haven’t found those as a scientific integrity violation?

Nope, Desikan maintains. “Again, we can get back to you in writing to discuss this more.” Oh, and another thing. “You also said in your opening statement that misinformation erodes trust in public institution. Did it erode trust in public institution… did it erode trust in the CDC when the head of the CDC said that the vaccinated cannot get the virus?” Well… “Again, I can’t speak on this specific issue.

That’s a simple question,” Jordan noted. She wouldn’t answer it no matter how he tried. The CDC, he points out, is “a pretty important public institution.

But when the head of the CDC says something that is absolutely false it isn’t considered a scientific integrity violation because a Democrat did it. Desikan repeatedly begged to answer that later, in writing, after someone comes up with an answer that makes more sense than what she was babbling.

Then, there was that whole thing where the teacher’s union ended up editing the guidance on school re-openings. Desikan didn’t think that should be a violation either, that’s a somebody else’s problem. Somebody in the policy department.

She had nothing to say about Fauci and his gain of function research in Wuhan or about Joe Biden and his sudden reversal on vaccine mandates. “How about when Dr. Fauci said that this virus didn’t start in a lab. Is that a concern? Does that erode trust? Because it sure looks it did. All the evidence points there. Is that something you’re going to investigate?” Probably not.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here