How Anthony Fauci Weaponized Science Against America

Since the 1970s, Fauci has repeatedly used the same playbook to reshape America's scientific apparatus to serve corporate America and become one of the most powerful bureaucrats in history.

One of the biggest problems in our government is that people are promoted based on their loyalty (and sociopathy) rather than their competency (and integrity). In turn, the leadership of federal bureaucracy tends to be infested with individuals who habitually cover up the crimes of the government and those who are eager to sell out America to corporate interests—rather than the best minds our country has to offer who could genuinely move America forward.

Because of this, the employees of the federal government (e.g., our scientists) are often trapped in a position where they want to do the right thing but can’t because a president appointed a boss for them whose only qualification was lifelong loyalty to the corporation which funded the president’s election. RFK Jr. for example, has shared this was what he learned from repeatedly suing the Federal government, likewise numerous CDC employees signed a letter attesting to this, and more recently, when the GAO conducted an investigation, they found employees in the Federal agencies responsible for the pandemic response reported that they had seen political interference prevent scientifically correct policies from being enacted within their agency.

In my eyes, this reality is a product of the fact America is a superpower in decline which has gotten such an excess of wealth and power (and propaganda) that its government no longer has to produce results to stay in power (e.g., consider how pivotal institutions in the country such as the current presidential administration are now filling their ranks with grossly unqualified individuals who meet DEI metrics and then not being held to account for the horrendous failures of these individuals).

One of the individuals who best embodies the dysfunctional foundation of our government is Anthony Fauci. Despite being grossly incompetent, Fauci has amassed an unprecedented degree of power over the decades because of his unwavering commitment to the pharmaceutical industry and to covering up the (scientific) crimes of the American government.
Note: prominent figures such as Rand Paul and RFK Jr have compared Fauci to J Edgar Hoover, as both of them were career bureaucrats who amassed an unprecedented degree of power in the government and then leveraged it to force everyone else to go along with their crimes. In Fauci’s case, this is particularly unfortunate because he corrupted our national scientific apparatus and transformed it into something that hurt rather than helped the people of America.

Throughout his career, Fauci has done heinous things to the people of America, but by and large, he has completely escaped accountability for those actions. Yesterday however, this changed and Fauci was forced to testify in front of Congress, where he was formally accused by our leaders of his crimes against America. I wrote this article because much of what they accused him of, many others previously did as well (including prominent Democrats who are still in Congress).

The Real Anthony Fauci

One of the mantras in neurolinguistic programming is that “past actions are the best predictor of future behavior,” and similarly, one of the main reasons most criminals get caught is because they repeat the same crime. As the years have gone by, I’ve come to appreciate more and more how true this is, and as a result, if I observe someone do something I feel is out of line twice, regardless of the specific excuse they have for it, I can predict with near certainty that they will continue to do the action, and I hence should prepare accordingly.
Note: many of the mistakes I made when I was younger came from me essentially ignoring those early warning signs from people and naively trusting their excuses for their conduct.

In previous articles, I’ve stated I was able to predict the entire course of the COVID-19 pandemic because I was familiar with what happened during the AIDS crisis. On the surface, this seems like a rather audacious claim to make. However, if you look into the sheer depravity of what Fauci actually did at that time, take note of the fact he never stopped using his AIDS playbook and recognized that rather than be punished, he was “promoted” and now wields far more power than he did then, it was essentially a forgone conclusion the atrocity of COVID-19 would happen.

Note: much of what follows is an abridged version of RFK Jr.’s book The Real Anthony Fauci.

When Fauci graduated medical school in 1966 during the Vietnam War, to avoid being sent to Vietnam, he took the only alternative—enrolling in America’s Public Health Service. In 1968, they gave him a position in the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and 9 years later (1977), he had risen to NIAID’s deputy clinical director.

At this time, NIAID and the CDC had a major problem—the infectious diseases they had been tasked with eliminating had mostly been eradicated from society (due to improved sanitation), and in recent decades, there had been stronger and stronger pushes from Congress to eliminate the unneeded agencies. To prevent this defunding, in 1976, NIAID’s director Richard M. Krause decided to launch “The Return of the Microbes” strategy to make the public become as scared of the threats we faced from microbes and hence pressure Congress to fund their agencies—a sensationalistic narrative the mass media was all too happy to go along with.

Shortly after, an opportunity presented itself with a new flu that broke out in a military base and killed a soldier, and a media campaign was enacted to make the public as terrified of this flu as possible. In parallel, Krause invited Merck to help them craft a strategy to produce an experimental vaccine for this pandemic, and provided the funding for its development, the waiving of safety checks for the vaccine (even when the government’s own scientists warned against approving the vaccine), granted them immunity from any injuries from the vaccine and the relentlessly promoted the experimental vaccine to the public. Beyond the forecasted pandemic never materializing (the soldier was the only death), the vaccine had a high rate of injuries and the media exposed it, eventually, both the CDC and NIAID directors had to resign.

Note: as discussed here, I know numerous people who were injured by the 1976 swine flu vaccine (e.g., one still-injured patient told me they were not getting the COVID vaccine because they were not going to fall for these lies again) and have colleagues who treated the initial victims of that vaccine.

Once Krause resigned, Fauci took his place and began initiating a transformation of NIAID where its research was outsourced to private “expert” scientists who were paid a lot of federal money to produce favorable results for new pharmaceutical drugs, approve them on federal panels (which they were strategically placed on), and widely promote them in the media. This model worked, and as the years have gone by, more and more of these loyal subordinates (e.g., Paul Offit and Peter Hotez) have gotten rich while usurping our nation’s scientific apparatus.

Note: from his earliest days of running NIAID, Fauci’s critics characterized him as neither being a competent manager nor a particularly skilled or devoted scientist, and rather felt his success was purely due to his being effective at manipulating the Federal bureaucracy and the mass media. That said, his one major accomplishment (which he is still highly respected for) was realizing that since chemotherapy agents destroyed the immune system, they could be repurposed at low doses to prevent the often fatal complications of a few otherwise incurable autoimmune diseases.

When AIDS emerged in 1981, numerous parties (e.g., the National Cancer Institute) tried to capture the likely bonanza its “treatment” would create. Due to his shrewd political maneuvering, once it was discovered in 1984 that “AIDS was caused by an infectious virus,” Fauci was able to have NIAID gain jurisdiction over everything for it. He then followed in the footsteps of his predecessor and tried to stir up as much fear as possible about HIV, making a series of patently false statements about the disease such as being spread through being in the proximity of someone who was infected (which resulted in an immense degree of discrimination towards the gay community since everyone was terrified of being around them) and essentially forecasting that AIDS would rapidly wipe out humanity.
Note: many at the time knew Fauci was misrepresenting the existing science when he made these claims.

To do this, Fauci made a point to use very slippery language that always implied these conclusions but never explicitly stated them, thereby causing the media to amplify his fear-mongering but simultaneously giving him an out once people accused him of lying. This point is very important to understand, because Fauci has successfully used this tactic for decades, and much of what he said during COVID-19 was verbatim identical to what he said during AIDS. Likewise, he mastered the art of giving very damaging verbal attacks against his opponents, which were cloaked behind “respectable” sounding words, which hence allowed him to have the media destroy their reputation without Fauci personally appearing to be at fault.

Note: another example of abusing this ambiguity is repeating the claim a vaccine is “safe and effective” as it implies (to most people) that the vaccine always works and never has side effects, but in reality, is a meaningless statement (e.g., if 1 in 10000 people are prevented from catching a cold, that is technically an ‘effective’ vaccine). Because of this, once a vaccine is exposed as a fraud, its proponents can then pivot to claiming they never promised complete efficacy (even though they strongly implied otherwise). In turn, I felt one of his Fauci’s most remarkably admissions during his recent testimony was stating “no vaccine is 100% effective” as that line can now be cited when someone asserts a vaccine is “safe and effective” since it then forces them to quantify what their statement actually means (which they can’t).

Fauci’s fear-mongering was successful, and he quickly transformed AIDS from something no one outside of the gay community cared about into a national emergency. Hence in 1982, the national budget for AIDS was $297,000, but it quickly skyrocketed, and by 1990, NIAID was receiving 3 billion a year for it. With his newfound power as the national AIDS czar, Fauci made a few pivotal strategic actions:

•He found an endless number of ways to blame the Federal bureaucracy for every failure he had made, despite the fact he largely controlled what the bureaucracy was doing.

•He was always able to find “independent” parties who could conveniently create the situation he needed to happen while making it look as though he had not been involved.

•He made it very clear to the media that he would only take softball interviews, and likewise was able to convince them to cancel last-minute debates with his prominent critics.

•Through his control of the media and the grant system, he transformed the culture of science to one where it was politically incorrect to question a dominant narrative. For example, when one of the world’s top cancer virologists (who had never had a grant request denied) made a compelling case AIDS was not caused by HIV (which essentially destroyed the entire AIDS grift), all future grants he applied for were denied (which continues to this day).  This in turn, sent a chilling message to other scientists as their lifeblood are the grants they receive. Likewise, Fauci was able to have his critics branded as “AIDS denialists” which hence justified refusing to ever debate or even consider their ideas (which horrified many other prominent scientists at the time, such as the inventor of the PCR tests).
Note: I am of the opinion Fauci’s transformation of the national research apparatus into one where you are not allowed to challenge existing scientific dogmas is the primary reason why innovative and disruptive ideas that move science forward (and were responsible for building the esteemed reputation science holds with the public today) have largely disappeared.

While all of that may sound familiar, the AZT saga is even more shocking.

The AZT Saga

In 1964, a potential chemotherapy drug was developed, but was then abandoned due to it being too deadly to benefit patients. After HIV was identified as the probable cause of AIDS, a large effort was made to identify a compound that could eliminate it, and once that drug (AZT) was found to do this in 1985, Burroughs Wellcome, a pharmaceutical company patented it and priced it at $10,000 a year (which at the time made it one of the most expensive drugs in history).

Fauci in turn, partnered with Wellcome to push AZT through the regulatory process, which due to the drug’s toxicity required skipping the required animal studies (which would have shown how dangerous the drug was), creating an overtly fraudulent clinical trial and paying off a variety of researchers and regulators to nonetheless push it through. Once an initial positive result from a small trial was obtained, Fauci claimed AZT was 95% effective, and halted the trial (as he deemed it unethical to withhold it from the placebo group), and without first having the trial be reviewed, announced its results to the media, which created an overnight rush for AZT (as the public was desperate for a cure for AIDS).
Note: prematurely cancelling the placebo group in a trial for “ethical” reasons is a reliable indicator that the drug is extremely dangerous and cannot afford to have a placebo group show that (e.g., this was done for the COVID vaccines).

As it turned out, the entire trial was rife with fraud. For example:
•The trial was not blinded.
•The sickest patients were placed in the placebo group.
•The placebo group (desperate for a cure) also took the drug.
•Those on AZT required regular blood transfusions to not be killed by the drug (which were not given to placebo patients taking AZT).
•The sickest patients on AZT were moved to the placebo group.
•Patients in the treatment group claimed to have taken the drug for much longer than they did.
•The investigators failed to report any of the severe side effects caused by AZT (which could be found within their medical records).
Note: the NIH also somehow concluded AZT was 1000 times less toxic than a private laboratory did.

In short, much of the “benefit” of AZT was a statistical artifact of its toxicity being attributed to untreated AIDS. As a result, once it hit the market in 1987, AIDS became a much more deadly disease—which Fauci then used to give AZT to far more people (i.e., healthy individuals who had a positive PCR test for HIV). Remarkably, while the European media was willing to discuss the serious fraud that had been uncovered in the AZT trials, the American media barely did, and Fauci was then able to push through a series of other highly toxic HIV medications.

So as you might guess, when I heard that Fauci, out of the blue (during one of Trump’s press conferences), had announced a miraculous cure for COVID-19 had been found, which would be the standard of care for COVID-19, I was a bit skeptical. Once I learned it was a non-specific viral replication inhibitor (like AZT) and was being priced exorbitantly, I assumed it was actually extremely dangerous, and before long learned in Africa and China it had been determined to be too unsafe and ineffective to justify using it.
Note: I later learned Fauci also changed the measured clinical outcome in his own remdesivir trial (since the survival benefit they had hoped for was not seen), which is also a common indicator of fraud.

Remarkably, this was not the only way history repeated itself. At the time AIDS was spreading through the country, the gay community became very vocal about getting treatments for the disease (which secured Fauci his billions in AIDS funding) and then increasingly upset as the NIH (which NIAID is part of) failed to produce any viable therapeutics for it. Because of this, like now with COVID-19, independent doctors in the community who didn’t want their patients to die began exploring ways to repurpose off-patent drugs to treat AIDS and before long had figured out how to do this.

As this represented an existential threat to Fauci’s AZT grift, Fauci in turn did everything he could to sabotage their work while simultaneously finding excuse after excuse to blame the delay on someone else.

When the activists asked Dr. Fauci to at least add AL 721, Peptide D, DHPG, and aerosolized pentamidine to his clinical trials [as these compounds were saving lives], Dr. Fauci’s refusal was loud: “I can’t do that!” he shouted. “I can’t convene a consensus conference.” The choice, he explained, of which compounds would enter NIAID’s clinical trial pipeline was made, not by public agreement, but by a panel of “independent scientists.” Dr. Fauci did not mention that virtually all the members of his “independent panel” were pharmaceutical PIs [researchers], with ties to NIAID and Burroughs Wellcome [AZT’s manufacturer].

The gay community gradually became aware of what he was doing, which resulted in them both finding ways to (illegally) obtain access to the unsanctioned medications (a movie was even made about this) and more and more vocal protests against Fauci as he refused to make these life saving medications available:

Similarly, since Fauci refused to listen to the gay community, it eventually resulted in a scathing 1988 Congressional hearing being held. At it, prominent Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi) called Fauci out for wasting all the money they had given him and his inability to bring a variety of promising treatments into clinical testing (including one Fauci admitted during the hearing he would use) because of his sole focus on the highly toxic AZT and the numerous egregious problems with the existing clinical trials. While I was unable to find a video of this hearing (which allegedly became quite heated), I did locate a transcript for it, which I believe is noteworthy as it again shows how consistent Fauci has been in his behavior (there are a lot of remarkable quotes in here such as the fact Fauci admitted that if he had AIDS he would use the same drug he was blocking the gay community from accessing):

Therapeutic Drugs For Aids

14.7MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Because of how damaging this hearing was for his career, Fauci attempted to rehabilitate his image with the gay community by pivoting to being an ally and agreeing to promote fast tracked community trials for the off-patent drugs which saved lives. However, that was largely a ruse, and Fauci managed to both sabotage those trials while simultaneously utilizing the accelerated pathway they created to push more toxic drugs onto the market.

In my eyes, the important takeaway from the AIDS crisis is that much in the same way individuals habitually repeat the same crimes, larger organizations do as well. More specifically, when they want to do something unconscionable the public would never accept, it’s first tested out on a smaller group that can’t advocate for itself (e.g., orphans, people in another country, or a heavily marginalized group). In turn, once the injustice on that marginalized group is accepted (and the kinks are worked out) it’s then done to successively less marginalized groups, until eventually it hits the general population. In short, I believe that had the American public vocally protested what Fauci did to the gay community during the AIDS crisis, COVID-19 could have never happened, but since homosexuals were heavily marginalized in America at the time (e.g., many believed they deserved to have AIDS) that never happened.

Note: during COVID-19, Fauci used a very similar playbook to protect the market for remdesivir. For example, despite the fact Fauci’s agency had found hydroxychloroquine (an off-patent drug) was an ideal treatment candidate for SARS (which led to numerous early studies being conducted that showed HCQ was an effective treatment for COVID-19), Fauci used a variety of lies to argue there was insufficient evidence for it (e.g., the data was anecdotal, there were no randomized trials, that the trials weren’t large enough etc.) that were almost identical to the same lines he used to bury the off-patent AIDS therapies.

The lies worked and allowed the media to paint HCQ’s proponents as “anti-science” and thereby not be allowed to debate the data. Following this, the medical community pivoted to producing doctored studies (e.g., ones that deliberately administered HCQ too late in the disease process for it to help, one with overtly fabricated data, and one which deliberately gave toxic doses to the recipients) which were then used to argue HCQ (one of the safest drugs on the market) was actually unsafe and ineffective. Fauci repeated these claims ad nauseam—including at his recent testimonies. Conversely, the drugs he promoted (e.g., AZT or Remdesivir) were never held to those standards and instead zealously endorsed despite having minimal scientific evidence (but due to Fauci’s way with words, he was able to make the public believe each drug was in fact miraculous). A confrontation Peter Navarro (Trump’s economic advisor) had with Fauci about HCQ in the White House helps to illustrate this dynamic:

I knew that Fauci would play the “there’s only anecdotal evidence” card and wanted to be ready to prove that that assertion was false.

When it was Fauci’s turn, right on cue, he immediately played his “there’s only anecdotal evidence” card. Just as immediately, I stood up from my backbench chair just behind Vice President Pence and walked straight toward Fauci.

Tony, these are not anecdotes. That’s more than fifty scientific studies in support of hydroxy. Fifty! So stop spouting your crap about there only being anecdotal evidence because not only is it counterfactual. You are going to kill people just like you did during the AIDS crisis when you refused to approve medicines that everybody but you knew worked.

It thus amazed me how many members of the LGBT community decided to religiously trust Fauci once COVID-19 happened.

The Bayh–Dole Act

Bureaucracies by nature slow things down and make it difficult to do anything (which in some ways can be a positive as that serves as a barrier towards someone in the government stepping too far out of line). Typically, the “solution” that gets adopted to address this inertia is to allow enough corruption to enter a bureaucracy that it motivates people to get things done—which unfortunately often leads to excessive corruption taking over the bureaucracy.

In 1980, four years before Fauci assumed directorship of NIAID, a pivotal piece of legislation was passed. It (the Bayh-Dole Act) allowed scientists, their universities, and Federal agencies that had used public research money to develop a product to then lease it to a company which in turn would pay significant royalties to the inventors once it was brought to market. The upside to this approach was that it allowed many Federal inventions that were languishing in storage to be brought to the market, but the downside was that it incentivized the Federal government and its employees to rapidly approve dubious pharmaceuticals they stood to profit from.

Fauci in turn (as shown throughout the RFK’s book), used this to gradually transform our nation’s research apparatus into a pharmaceutical production pipeline where research grants were prioritized on the basis of whether they could lead to profitable pharmaceutical products, and everyone within the government was gradually paid off to promote their licensure (regardless of how unsafe and ineffective they were). Fauci and one of his chief deputies for example, each received significant royalty payments for an experimental AIDS treatment that an immense amount of Federal money was spent developing.
Note: this is essentially why it is very easy to get an unsafe and ineffective pharmaceutical backed by a major pharmaceutical company approved but so difficult to get a safe and effective off-patent therapy that is instead backed by charitable organizations and independent physicians.

Simultaneously, Fauci did all that he could to conceal this from the public. For example, in 2005, the Associated Press discovered that 916 current and former NIH researchers are receiving royalty payments for drugs and other inventions they developed while working for the government and that the NIH’s scientists and administrators flagrantly disregard ethical and legal requirements of financial disclosure. As you might suspect, Fauci had refused to disclose his conflicts of interest to patients he recruited for his trials until the AP’s FOIA request exposed this unethical conduct and forced him to.
Note: at the time of that 2005 investigation, Fauci apologized and pledged more transparency, but instead (as a non-profit watchdog group was able to show), the NIH made it much harder for the royalty payments to be accessible with FOIAs.

Fauci’s influence skyrocketed after 9/11, when Bush (at the behest of Cheney), brought all biodefense research under the control of the NIAID director, including projects that were previously overseen by military or intelligence agencies. Because of this, Fauci became heavily involved in gain of function (bioweapons) research and continued in it even after Obama banned it—some of which was outsourced to the Wuhan lab where COVID-19 originated from. Remarkably, despite the criticisms of this conduct, Fauci still defends (and promotes) both Gain of Function research and studying bats (e.g., recently there has been significant protest in Fort Collins CO over an NIH bat lab being erected there).

Fauci’s COVID Response

As many of you remember, throughout the pandemic, Fauci did all he could to create fear about COVID-19, provided a series of conflicting declarations about the pandemic (e.g., you don’t need to wear masks and then you do need to wear masks) and offered numerous pronouncements which were quickly disproven (e.g., he continually lowered the bar for the COVID-19 vaccines)—all of which were essentially a repeat of what he did throughout AIDS.

Simultaneously, he worked to destroy the reputation of off-patent therapies (e.g., hydroxychloroquine) and did all that he could to promote the NIH’s proprietary (royalty-generating) treatments for COVID-19. For example, with remdesivir, he lied to the public about the safety and efficacy of the drug while simultaneously stacking the NIH’s panel with loyal subordinates who were taking money from remdesivir’s manufacturer.
Note: while this panel was supposed to be “independent,” one of its chairs (who had a long history with Fauci) inadvertently admitted during his recent testimony to the Congressional committee that he met with Fauci on a regular basis to develop the COVID-19 treatment guidelines.

Not surprisingly, the “independent” committee consistently voted for remdesivir (and the other lucrative COVID therapies) but against each competing off-patent therapy, regardless of the evidence which argued against doing so. To illustrate:

Note: the EUA list can be found here, the NIH treatment guidelines here. Additionally, since I made the above chart, new data has emerged and the efficacy of some of the (still) approved therapies has dropped (e.g., Paxlovid is now at 17%, molnupiravir is at 13%, and remdesivir is at 2%).

In parallel to this, Fauci earned a place on the White House’s COVID-19 task force, where in partnership with Deborah Birx, he continually advocated for locking down America, conducting mass PCR tests which he then used to justify more lockdowns and waiting for the vaccine to save us (because according to Fauci, no therapy could stop COVID). Due to Fauci’s influence within the scientific community and media, few “experts” wanted to challenge this policy, but gradually, people came forward as it was clear this policy just wasn’t working (rather than saving lives, lots of people were dying) and the lockdowns were inflicting enormous costs on the society.

This situation inspired Scott Atlas to write a series of editorials which argued we should instead be focusing on protecting the people who were vulnerable to COVID-19 (the elderly) and end the lockdowns (and mass testing) for everyone else, as the current policies were not preventing the elderly from dying but were inflicting massive harm on the general population (who were not at risk of dying from COVID). This attracted the attention of the White House, and before long Scott Atlas was brought in.

Once there he discovered, that the COVID-19 task force (including the Vice President) had essentially decided to defer to the judgment of three of the doctors on it, all of whom had been heavily involved in the AIDS response and wanted to use the approach they used for AIDS with COVID (even though the diseases were completely different and hence not applicable to the other).
Note: the three doctors were Fauci, Birx and Redfield. Of the three, Redfield was the most rational, but he was frequently overrun by Birx (who dominated the task force meetings) and Fauci (who continuously promoted their lockdown ideology in the media despite President Trump advocating for reopening the country).

Much of what Atlas observed Fauci and Birx doing was difficult to believe. Here are a few quotes about Fauci from his memoir:

A bigger surprise was that Fauci did not present scientific research on the pandemic to the group that I witnessed. Likewise, I never heard him speak about his own critical analysis of any published research studies. This was stunning to me.

One depressing commonality was that none of them showed detailed knowledge of ongoing scientific literature on the pandemic. As opposed to what I had experienced with my colleagues in academic research centers, I never witnessed any of them provide any detailed critique of any journal publication.

Unlike scientists with whom I had worked for decades, I never saw them voice any critical assessment, methodological or otherwise, of the pitfalls of any published studies. That analytical process is an extremely important part of evaluating medical research. Likewise, none of the three ever brought scientific publications into the meetings that I attended. And unlike other doctors I had worked with, none showed familiarity with clinical medicine or had any clinical perspective on medical journal publications or any facility with clinical terminology in meetings I attended during my time in Washington. 

Meanwhile, the Task Force, particularly Dr. Fauci in his media appearances, kept focusing on what might happen, stressing what we didn’t know with absolute certainty, rather than underscoring what we did know about the virus based on months of evidence, including the most fundamental biology. The Task Force was failing to communicate any clinical “medical perspective, never clarifying that rare complications are just that—rare. Even worse, the media was sensationalizing every new piece of information. The panic itself had become another contagion.

I felt burned out, simply unable to muster the energy to yet again correct something so unmistakably wrong. That happened most commonly when selective correlations were assumed to be cause and effect, like a non-scientist might conclude.

It did not matter that their policy was failing to save lives while simultaneously destroying lower-income families. Dr. Fauci himself called it simply “inconvenient,” seemingly without any self-awareness that he spoke as a member of an elite class. 

There was no articulation of what we knew, what the scientific studies and the world’s evidence had shown. On the contrary, Fauci repeatedly emphasized in his occasional Task Force comments, as he did in his frequent media interviews, what we did not know with certainty, just as a layman without any medical perspective would do. For instance, the issue of risk to children, or spread from children to adults, was always, “Well, we don’t know for sure,” despite repeated studies from all over the world elucidating that we did know. That pattern of highlighting uncertainties while minimizing decades of fundamental immunology and virology was alarmist and contrary to the expected behavior of a public health leader. It created massive fear inside and outside the White House, and it drove on-the-ground lockdowns and mandates.

We then spoke about kids and schools, and he asked what I thought “about the risk to children.”… I went through a fairly thorough discussion of the international literature to date on the remarkably low risk to children for serious illness or death…Fauci listened. He offered no other studies, no other data, and nothing in dispute, other than commenting, “Well, what if we aren’t totally sure?”

Near the start of the next Task Force meeting, Dr. Fauci excitedly exclaimed, “Scott, this may interest you,” from across the table. “There is a report about myocarditis in these patients.” This was truly remarkable, in one sense. It was the only time I can recall during my entire four months in the White House that Anthony Fauci spoke up about a research study. 

Fauci began by explaining that an MRI study showed myocarditis in people after COVID. From his vague description of it, I assumed that he got his information from a summary, rather than the entire research report. I had read this study. I knew the methodology and the results in detail. I had already discussed it with cardiologists and infectious disease physicians who took care of patients.

I politely listened as Dr. Fauci spoke about the study. He quickly jumped to what he often did—the alarmist interpretation of “how dangerous this virus is.” He then moved to other things “we don’t know,” speculating about potential problems from this virus. He then garbled out something that was almost unrecognizable. He had grossly mispronounced a medical term. 

I leaned forward, struck by what I heard. I interrupted. “What did you just say?” He stopped immediately, frozen. No reply. 

I repeated my question. “What did you just say? What are you trying to pronounce?” Fauci just looked at me. The room was silent. Then I said, “Are you trying to say encephalomyelitis?” 

This was an uncommon inflammation of the brain or spinal cord that could occur after a viral infection. Uncommon, but well known to doctors with clinical medical expertise. I had published and taught about encephalomyelitis for decades. 

I needed to clarify the meaning of the findings, since I was concerned that Fauci would issue his usual alarmist proclamations on cable news. I spoke for ten straight minutes, explaining the study design and the data…This small report of four entirely asymptomatic individuals with an MRI finding after COVID was absolutely not a cause for alarming the public. 

As often happened, Fauci spoke up to support Dr. Birx’s concerns, saying people need to be warned even more strongly about the dangers of the virus spreading, about wearing masks and distancing. He claimed Americans didn’t think the virus was serious, and that was the reason cases spread. I was honestly surprised. I thought people were already panic-stricken. Normal life had virtually ceased to exist, even eliminating serious medical care or last visits with dying family. Meanwhile the media were on-message 24/7, instructing the public about masks and social distancing; there were signs and announcements demanding masks and diagrams about distancing everywhere; healthy young people were outside riding bicycles or driving their cars alone, wearing masks. Indeed, surveys showed that most adults perceived grossly exaggerated risks, particularly but not only younger people; and yes, a high percentage were obeying the edicts, distancing and wearing masks, according to virtually every published survey. 

I challenged him to clarify his point, because I couldn’t believe my ears. “So you think people aren’t frightened enough?” He said, “Yes, they need to be more afraid.”

So to recap, that’s America’s “best” scientist we continually hear people in the media deify.

Note: since Fauci could not refute Atlas at task force meetings, he instead recruited the media to attack Atlas and frequently made demonstrable lies over what transpired there (e.g., this national headline was a blatant lie) Worse still, each time Atlas (who was working with a team of premier researchers around the country) began making progress towards convincing the Task Force to adopt a more sane evidence-based approach to handling COVID-19, someone there (who was almost certainly Fauci) leaked it to the media so that a hysteria could be created that overturned his suggested policy. This in turn, illustrates the cancel culture Fauci instilled within American science, which during the pandemic often reached the point where it was simply not possible for self-evident truths that went against the narrative to be publicly debated.

The Fauci Testimony

As many activists have learned during COVID-19, it takes an immensely long time for anything in the Federal bureaucracy to change (hence why the Bayh-Dole Act was “needed”). However, due to the political pressure our movement has been able to generate, many Republicans are now willing to investigate and criticize what happened throughout COVID-19 (e.g., our reckless Gain of Function research which inevitably leads to lab leaks, the nonsensical approaches taken to manage COVID-19, the unjustifiable and immensely damaging lockdowns, the suppression of effective COVID-19 treatments, the COVID vaccine mandates and the brutal suppression of any dissent from the narrative).

In turn, once the Republicans took over the House in 2022, a Republican lead committee was launched to investigate the coronavirus response. A month ago, they released a report that showed that taxpayer grants were being used to conduct dangerous (and illegal) GoF research without any of the required oversight from the NIH, and that the responsible parties (e.g., Fauci and Dazak) had consistently neglected to fulfill their required responsibilities that were meant to ensure the safety and integrity of this research. More recently, they released a 14-hour deposition with Fauci which found:

•There was no way effective way within the NIH to monitor what was being done with Federal research grants (e.g., if they were being used by our adversaries or dangerous research was being conducted with them).

•Fauci answered over 100 questions with “I do not recall” (or a variant of that), including subjects he clearly should have remembered. Because of this, the committee concluded that he was being deliberately evasive.

•Fauci was intentionally using wordplay to conceal the NIAID’s role in GoF research.

•There was no evidence for many of the devastating policies Fauci promoted throughout the pandemic.

Note: part 1 of Fauci’s private testimony can be read here, part 2 here, and the committee’s summary of both here.

A few days ago, Fauci was called to give public testimony, and many extraordinary statements emerged that quickly went viral on social media.
Note: politicians often use these types of hearings to create promotional clips for their re-election campaigns. This characterized the Democratic responses, whereas the Republican ones were more measured.

As I watched the hearings, two things jumped out at me.

The first was that much of what Fauci did there was identical to what he did in the 1988 hearing.

The second was much of what the members of Congress said to Fauci was very similar to what had been said during the 1988 hearings—except this time, it was the (moderate) Republicans scrutinizing Fauci and Democrats vehemently defending him (whereas in the past the Democrats scrutinized him and the Republicans were more distanced from the issue). This is quite extraordinary, and I believe again illustrates how the Democrat party was bought out by the pharmaceutical industry during the Obama presidency.

For the most part, the Republicans provided very straightforward (dispassionate) critiques of Fauci’s actions which highlighted that:

•There were clear financial conflicts of interests within the NIH which may have unduly influenced the COVID response (e.g., the NIH received 400 million in royalty payments from Moderna for their vaccine).
Note: Fauci blamed this on the Bay-Dole Act and said it was Congress’s responsibility rather than his to fix it. Likewise, not many know this, but in 2021, Fauci received a 1 million dollar Israeli prize for “speaking truth to power” and defending science.

•Fauci repeatedly commissioned third parties to provide impartial defenses of him, which he then repeatedly cited as authoritative and independent (e.g., he had the GoF definition be rewritten so he could claim his GoF experiments weren’t GoF experiments, and he had a team of virologists he had corresponded with who needed him to approve a grant suddenly come to the conclusion COVID-19 could not have come from a lab and author a paper to that effect—even though in private they had stated they were positive it was a lab leak).
Note: the Democrats there also overtly supported Fauci’s semantic argument that he did not engage in GoF research (along attempting to rewrite history by saying vaccine efficacy should be based on reduced hospitalizations rather than reduced infections).

•Fauci continually attempted to blame everything which had gone awry during the COVID-19 response on some nebulous aspect of the Federal bureaucracy, when in reality the responsibility lay with him. For example:

Cloud: This is one of the things that's really troubling to the American people because they look at their lives being destroyed and there's no one to hold accountable because these systems of accountability have become systems of plausible deniability and so your name is on every single grant yet you absolve yourself of any sort of responsibility by saying well you know it goes to this committee that's you know that has a number of people on it and they're approved in block and so there's no accountability for anything any of the taxpayer dollars that are going forth.

Fauci: I disagree with you Congressman because if you look at the number of Grants we fund thousands of Grants it would be physically impossible for me to go through every single Grant in a detailed way to understand it that is true not only for me but for virtually every Institute at the NIH.

Cloud: Then why does your signature go on it?

Fauci: Because somebody has to sign off on it.

•Rather than admit what he didn’t know, Fauci unnecessarily stoked as much fear about COVID-19 as possible and that this harm resulted in direct harm to the people of America (e.g., due to the lockdown and many other arbitrary pandemic policies that were enacted without evidence to support them). As many of his absolute declarations were then shown to be patently false, this resulted in the general public losing their trust in America’s science—something which should have happened years ago had the media honestly reported what occurred within the COVID-19 task force.
Note: as best as I can tell, the 6-foot rule originated from a science project created by a high school sophomore in 2006. Amongst other things, it was nonsensical for COVID-19 because the virus had an aerosolized spread and hence traveled much further than 6 feet (along with it lingering in the air long after the infected individual had left). However, despite many attempts to point this out, it was ignored throughout the pandemic.

•Fauci refused to investigate the lab leak hypothesis and successfully had any dissident of his narratives be labeled as “anti-science” which resulted in many who criticized them being canceled and most of the media censoring those competing voices (e.g., those who promoted the lab leak hypothesis). However, at the hearing, Fauci kept on insisting he was “open-minded” to where COVID-19 came from.
Note: Representative Jim Jordan also highlighted that the Federal government had pressured platforms like Facebook to censor the lab leak hypothesis and that Fauci had a clear conflict of interest in suppressing this narrative.

•Many of the people who worked with Fauci admitted in writing they had intentionally concealed their activity to evade FOIA requests (including those for Fauci), and that Fauci’s attempts to claim he did not really know these people were doubtful given his long history with them and the fact that many of his emails indicated he had moved to discuss sensitive topics outside of email.

•When asked if the vaccine prevented transmission (which Fauci had repeatedly promised on national television despite it being known that it did not), Fauci successfully dodged the accusation by stating:

That is a complicated issue because in the beginning the first iteration of the vaccines did have an effect not 100% not a high effect they did prevent infection and...subsequently obviously transmission; however it's important to point out something that we did not know early on that became evident as the months went by is that the durability of protection against infection and hence transmission was relatively limited whereas the duration of protection against severe disease hospitalization and deaths was more prolonged.

For context, when the vaccines were being tested, leading medical journals pointed out that the trials were not testing if the vaccines prevented transmission or protected one from serious illness (in other words, the two most important things to test for). Additionally, based on their mechanism (reducing symptoms of COVID-19 within the bloodstream) it was unlikely they would prevent the virus from colonizing the airway and hence asymptomatically spreading to the environment. Nonetheless, health authorities continued to argue the vaccines prevented transmission (since this justified mandates) even after an overwhelming amount of evidence had emerged that transmission was indeed occurring from vaccinated individuals.

Overall, I felt this (excellent) line of questioning overall was the most representative of the Republican’s inquiry into Fauci’s conduct:

The Fauci Defense

As mentioned in previous articles, I believe that the US government miscalculated how much credibility they would lose with the American public because of the COVID-19 response (e.g., their mandated vaccine failed to prevent COVID, many have permanent vaccine injuries and 1 in 5 Americans know someone they believe was killed by it).

I hence believe they are in a situation where no amount of propaganda can regain the public’s trust in our medical authorities. In turn, they are effectively stuck between two unacceptable positions—either lose the public trust the entire medical industry depends upon, or genuinely admit they messed up and do something to earn America’s forgiveness.

Because of this, we’ve seen numerous sneaky attempts to regain the public’s trust, each of which essentially has been pseudo-apologies that avoid admitting that anything wrong happened. In turn, since each of these disingenuous apologies failed to restore the public’s trust we’ve seen progressively more candid admissions of fault happen (e.g., the school lockdowns were a mistake), and bit by bit, easy fall guys be thrown under the bus.

Given that the left deified Fauci throughout the pandemic, I was curious to see if they would defend him and, if so, how.

First, as much as I hate to use this word, the Democrats went hysterical defending Fauci and denouncing any of the Republican critiques against him as an attack on science and our nation. Of them, I felt particularly bad for Congressmen Garcia, as he justified his fanatical support for Fauci on the basis of the fact his parents died from COVID, and Fauci’s selfless work saved millions of other lives—while in reality his parents most likely died because Fauci restricted the public from safe and effective COVID-19 treatments.

From watching their speeches, I noted that:

•They consistently glamorized Fauci, gave softball questions to him, and then treated his responses as fact (e.g., “Did the vaccine save lives?” “Yes” “Could COVID-19 have come from the viruses you were researching?” “No”).

•They claimed to be “open-minded” but insisted there was “not a shred of evidence” that Fauci was in any way at fault.

•They blamed the deaths we saw throughout COVID-19 on misinformation rather than poor COVID-19 policy. To quote Congressmen Mfume:

[Birx] said publicly on the record that thousands of American lives could have
been spared, spared if we had done what we were being told to do by the scientific community.  At least one thing is clear those 1 million people who died as result of these conspiracy theories will never come back and those families have seats at the table year after year and we do a disservice if at the very least we don't acknowledge their deaths and the harm and the hurt that has been done to their families and learn learn how to find a way to trust science going forward in this country.

Note: Fauci also cited Peter Hotez’s claim that refusing to vaccinate killed 200,000-300,000 Americans (which I showed was false).

•They admitted there was a critical loss of trust in America’s health authorities, but blamed it on Republicans questioning scientists like Fauci rather than attributing it to their conduct.

•They equated all of their negative partisan talking points about Trump to any criticisms of Fauci. For example, two Democrats and Fauci cited Trump telling people to inject themselves with bleach (which if you watch Trump’s actual remarks is a patently false accusation—to the point even Politicfact admitted it). To quote one of the Democrats:

Dr Fauci’s testimony along with the thousands of pages of documents and dozens of closed-door testimony provided to House Republicans as part of the covid origins investigation will dispel these hysterical claims and reveal that the people bowing down to a twice impeached convicted felon who told Americans to inject themselves with bleach now want you to believe not only a big political lie but a big medical lie too. I hope that this committee will be able to correct all of the propaganda and disinformation today.

Note: nasal disinfectants are some of the safest and most effective treatments which exist for COVID-19 (provided they are used early in the disease). Likewise, one of the promising (and safe) COVID treatments resulted from putting UV light inside COVID infected lungs (which is most likely what Trump actually was referencing at the time).

•They played up the victim card as much as possible for him (which Fauci then did later on national TV) by emphasizing that each time something negative was said about Fauci, this resulted in death threats being sent to him and his family. This ignores the fact that many COVID dissidents (e.g., politicians or doctors like Atlas) had aggressive threats sent towards them (along with being harassed in public) after Fauci had the media incite a mob against them, and unlike Fauci (who was given a permanent security detail), they were on themselves to defend themselves. Furthermore, much of this harassment was part of a coordinated campaign funded by the pharmaceutical industry which ruined many people’s lives (and was accompanied by real death threats).

•They characterized scrutinizing Fauci as an attack on science that benefitted Russia, China, and Iran and was only motivated by partisan politics (along with all the other buzzwords like misinformation and conspiracy theories). Likewise, they argued that holding Fauci accountable for his actions would scare our most talented individuals from entering the scientific field, and hence, these criticisms were an attack on America itself.

•They (including Fauci) were willing to blame Fauci’s subordinates, America’s outdated IT infrastructure, the Chinese government and the CDC for what went awry during COVID-19. This in my eyes, indicated they had prioritized protecting the Department of Defense’s bioweapons research program, as while they were willing to throw many prized assets and institutions under the bus, they would not so much as mention the DoD.
Note: I believe America’s (illegal) bioweapons program is one of the greatest threats we face to our national security (e.g., disastrous lab leaks are routine and inevitable).

Conclusion

I’ve avoided writing about Fauci because the extent of the damage he has done to America is so vast and well-concealed that no article would be sufficient to fully expose it (e.g., RFK Jr’s The Real Anthony Fauci is 814 pages and still omits much of what Fauci has done). Nonetheless, I hope that this article has helped paint a picture of what he’s done again and again over the decades, and how each time, he’s caused even more damage (e.g., chronic illness or developmental disabilities have gone from being rare in our children to present in the majority of them).

My sincere hope is that COVID was so far out of line, it will finally create the pressure to begin holding the system accountable for what it’s done to America.

In turn, while most of the Republicans were fairly unemotional in their questioning of Fauci, a few did express how many Americans were feeling. For example, a Congressmen and ER doctor pointed out how insane it was that bureaucrats who did not treat COVID-19 patients were creating mandatory practice guidelines which did not reflect the clinical reality of the disease and then played a clip of Fauci stating:

“I have to say that I don’t see a big solution, other than some sort of mandatory vaccination. I know federal officials don’t like to use that term. Once people feel empowered and protected legally, you’re going to have schools, universities, and colleges are going to say, ‘you want to come to this college buddy, you’re going to get vaccinated. Lady, you’re going to get vaccinated.’ Yeah, big corporations, like Amazon and Facebook and all of those others, are going to say ‘you want to work for us, you get vaccinated.’ And it’s been proven that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bullshit and they get vaccinated.”

In turn, when summarizing the hearing, the committee noted that Fauci showed no remorse for the lives his policies (e.g., mandates and school closures) destroyed (which is no surprise given Atlas’s interactions with him during the pandemic).

The most scathing critique of Fauci’s conduct came from Marjorie Taylor Green:

Note: when questioned by the media afterward, she used more explicit language to describe the circus she had witnessed.

I hope this article provided some valuable context to the individual who managed to convince many Americans he represented science and was the hero they could trust in, and why it is so critical we reclaim the actual scientific method our society’s success was built upon. At this point, it is critical we keep up the political pressure to hold people like Fauci accountable and I sincerely thank each of you for all that you have done to get us this far. It is my hope that we are at last nearing an era where “The Science™” can no longer control the public discourse.

To learn how other readers have benefitted from this publication and the community it has created, their feedback can be viewed here. Additionally, an index of all the articles published in the Forgotten Side of Medicine can be viewed here.