The Biotech CEO Who Told Me He Tried to Reach Trump—and the Questions Fauci Still Won’t Answer
By Christine Bish at The Bish Report
While I was suing Governor Gavin Newsom over California’s lockdown restrictions, a vaccine developer contacted me about an alternative COVID-19 platform. Congress should hear his account under oath.
Anthony Fauci once told a national television audience that people criticizing him were “really criticizing science” because, as he put it, “I represent science.”1
This week, under subpoena before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Fauci refused to answer more than 100 questions, repeatedly invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The committee is considering a contempt referral. Taking the Fifth is a constitutional right, not proof of guilt. But his silence has revived one of the central questions of the pandemic:2
Who controlled the information reaching President Trump and the American people?
That question takes me back to a private conversation in 2021.
Why Mark contacted me
I was not a bystander.
In April 2020, Ron Givens and I filed Givens v. Newsom, a federal civil-rights lawsuit challenging California’s stay-at-home order and restrictions on our rights to speak, assemble and petition the government.3
I had sought to participate in a peaceful protest at the California State Capitol. Our complaint alleged that the state’s restrictions violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Harmeet Dhillon and the Dhillon Law Group represented us, together with civil-rights attorney D. Gill Sperlein.3
I had also become outspoken against coercive vaccine mandates and the assertion that questioning safety, alternatives or long-term effects made someone “anti-science.”
That was the environment in which Mark Emalfarb contacted me.
Mark was developing a COVID vaccine
Mark was not an anonymous online critic. He was the founder and chief executive officer of Dyadic International, a publicly traded biotechnology company.
Dyadic was advancing a protein-production system known as the C1 platform and developing DYAI-100, its own recombinant-protein COVID-19 vaccine candidate, toward a first-in-human Phase 1 trial. The company was also examining multivariant vaccine candidates.4
In plain English, Mark was not trying to stop vaccine development. He was developing a vaccine of his own. |
On October 19, 2021, he contacted me through Twitter, now X. His profile identified him as Mark Emalfarb, and he provided a Dyadic corporate email address and telephone number. The corporate email matched the address published in Dyadic’s official materials.4
His opening message began:
“Chris, there is more to the story.”
Figure 1. Excerpt from Mark Emalfarb’s October 19, 2021, X message to Christine Bish. Personal contact information has been redacted for publication. Source: Christine Bish’s preserved X messages.
Mark said that people concerned about mRNA and DNA technologies were not necessarily opposed to vaccines. More traditional approaches existed, he explained, and he offered to help me understand the differences so I could communicate them to others.
On November 26, he sent additional information about Dyadic’s work:
| “mRNA and DNA technologies are not the only way to rapidly develop vaccine candidates.” |
Figure 2. Mark Emalfarb’s November 26, 2021, message describing Dyadic’s C1 platform and variant vaccine work. Source: Christine Bish’s preserved X messages.
His description of recombinant proteins, the C1 platform and candidates targeting multiple variants closely matched Dyadic’s public disclosures from the same period.4
I asked the question that concerned me most:
| “What are the expected long-term effects of the vaccines on young children?” |
Mark answered:
| “Not sure, but a milder version of the vaccine that uses a traditional adjuvant might be a safer approach, that’s what we are developing.” |
Figure 3. The November 2021 exchange concerning long-term effects on children and a traditional-adjuvant approach. Source: Christine Bish’s preserved X messages.
That statement did not prove Dyadic’s candidate was safer. It had not completed the human testing needed to establish safety or effectiveness.
What struck me was his willingness to admit uncertainty.
A biotechnology executive developing a COVID vaccine acknowledged that he could not predict its long-term effects on children. He believed a more traditional approach might prove safer, but understood that clinical testing—not political certainty—would have to answer that question.
Meanwhile, Fauci was publicly treating criticism of his authority as criticism of science itself.
No person represents science. Science requires evidence, disagreement, scrutiny, and the freedom to question powerful institutions. When one official becomes the only acceptable voice, science begins to resemble control.
What Mark told me by telephone
He told me he had attempted to get information about Dyadic’s technology directly to President Trump. According to Mark, high-ranking people close to the President prevented him from getting through.
He sounded desperate to get his story out.
I did not witness those efforts, and I am not presenting his allegation as independently proven. I can testify to what Mark told me and to the urgency I heard in his voice.
His account can be tested:
| • Who did he contact?
• What materials did he submit? • Was Dyadic’s platform evaluated by federal officials? • Did anyone seek a presentation for President Trump? • Who decided whether the information would reach him? |
Emails, telephone logs, presentations and meeting requests should help answer those questions.
Mark had a commercial interest in promoting Dyadic’s technology. That fact should be disclosed. But every pharmaceutical and biotechnology company seeking federal attention, contracts or regulatory support had a commercial interest.
| The proper response is not to accept his claim blindly—or dismiss it automatically. It is to examine the evidence. |
These questions matter because the consequences of the pandemic response did not end when the press conferences stopped.
Businesses disappeared. Children lost classroom instruction and academic progress. Families were separated from loved ones in hospitals and long-term-care facilities. The damage was financial, emotional and, for many people, permanent.5
Americans also continue to report serious injuries they believe followed COVID-19 vaccination. A report does not prove causation. But as of July 1, 2026, the federal Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program had received 11,055 claims alleging COVID-19 vaccine-related injuries or deaths. Sixty-two COVID-19 countermeasure claims had been compensated, while others had been found eligible or remained under review.6
Those people deserve careful medical review, honest answers and basic human dignity—not ridicule.
The people who lost businesses, health, educational opportunities or irreplaceable time with dying relatives deserve to know whether President Trump received every credible option available to him—or only what powerful gatekeepers permitted him to see.
Mark Emalfarb should testify
Congress should call Mark Emalfarb to testify under oath.
He should identify whom he contacted, explain what he attempted to deliver to President Trump and produce the communications supporting his account. Federal agencies should disclose whether Dyadic’s technology was reviewed, what conclusions were reached and what happened to the proposal.
Perhaps Dyadic’s candidate would have succeeded. Perhaps it would have failed. Honest scientific evaluation should have answered that question.
What should never have happened was the narrowing of scientific discussion to a government-approved voice while competing technologies, legitimate questions and injured Americans were pushed aside.
I remain vehemently opposed to the lockdowns and mandates that I believe violated our constitutional rights. I challenged them publicly, politically and in federal court.
Mark Emalfarb contacted me because I was willing to fight and willing to listen.
| Now Congress should listen to him—under oath. |
Sources and Supporting Records
The X messages reproduced in this article are primary records preserved by Christine Bish. The account of the later telephone call is the author’s firsthand recollection; the allegation concerning access to President Trump has not yet been independently corroborated.
- CBS News, “Transcript: Dr. Anthony Fauci on Face the Nation,” November 28, 2021.
- Reuters, “Fauci invokes Fifth Amendment at Rand Paul-led U.S. Senate COVID hearing,” July 29, 2026; and U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, “Testimony of Anthony Fauci.”
- Center for American Liberty, “Center for American Liberty Sues Gov. Newsom Over Ban on Public Protests,” April 27, 2020; Givens et al. v. Newsom et al., No. 2:20-cv-00852.
- Dyadic International / SEC filing, May 13, 2021, describing DYAI-100, the C1 platform and variant vaccine development; Dyadic corporate materials listing Mark Emalfarb as CEO and the corporate contact address.
Dyadic corporate announcement identifying Mark Emalfarb and the company contact address.
The post The Biotech CEO Who Told Me He Tried to Reach Trump—and the Questions Fauci Still Won’t Answer appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.