I originally intended to compile some Fauci sins into a single article. The list then became long enough two separate into two articles. Eventually, I had to splice it all into a trilogy of unscientific and politically-motivated buffoonery. At the rate Fauci and our scientific community are moving, it is not unrealistic to expect that this can be a recurring column.
On with Part 3.
Here’s a game: Listed below are four quotes, two each coming from Anthony Fauci and two others from Dr. Scott Atlas, a former Trump advisor and a neuroradiologist from Stanford. As an added layer, two of these quotes were made in July and two of them were made in late November and early December? Who said what, and when?
1. “If you look at the data, the spread among children and from children is not really very big at all, not like one would have suspected…So let’s try to get the kids back, but let’s try to mitigate the things that maintain and just push the kind of community spread that we’re trying to avoid.”
2. “Obviously, you don’t have one size fits all, but as I’ve said in the past, and as you accurately quoted me – the default position should be as best as possible, within reason, to keep the children in school and get them back to school.”
3. “Children are at extremely low risk from SARS-CoV-2 [coronavirus], young adults are at extremely low risk from SARS-CoV-2. They’re a much higher risk from things like drinking and driving. For young children … they’re a much higher risk [from] things like abuse and neglect. They’re a higher risk from the flu. If you’re a child or teenager, you’re at higher risk from the flu, no question about it. You’re high risk from drowning, from fires, from many, many different things.”
4. “It’s completely contrary to the data to keep the schools closed, it’s counter to science, it’s almost on the border of absurd to require a limit in the schools.”
The answers? The first two are statements given by Anthony Fauci in November and December. The other two are statements given by Dr. Atlas over six months ago. New science to inform our decisions? Hardly.
Contrast the two recent Fauci’s statements about the supposed easy and obvious answer of schools being open. As far back as April, Fauci was attacking Florida’s governor Ron De Santis for keeping schools open; as recently as September, Fauci was saying that remote learning might be in students’ foreseeable futures. A fuller list of Fauci’s intent to keep schools closed can be seen at the Center of the American Experiment.
There are a couple of flops and red flags with regard to vaccines. Back in early March, the Trump administration was already discussing vaccine development and FDA authorization. In response, Fauci, standing right next to Trump, swatted the notion of a vaccine by the end of 200 away as if it were a pesky fly at a debate, saying: “The whole process is going to take a year, a year and a half, at least.”
A year to a year and a half? Science changes, that’s a given. Even the laws of gravity are theoretical. But as this is Part 3 of a never-ending saga, it is clear that Fauci habitually asserts a scientific truth, only to change his mind a few months later. For the duration of the year, his outlook on the vaccine was much more optimistic. This is particularly true now that the election is over.
Even more confounding is Fauci’s insistence that receiving the vaccine doesn’t entitle the newly-inoculated to return to normalcy. Masks, social distancing, and everything else is still required. If the vaccine were so effective, why isn’t anything changing? There is also the bizarre functionality of the vaccine; Fauci has noted that apparently it only prevents symptoms but not necessarily transmission. That sounds like a terrible vaccine.
By definition, a vaccine is supposed to “increase immunity to a particular disease.” Increased immunity means you can’t get sick, and we already established in Part 1 that both the WHO and CDC determined all the way back in June and July that asymptomatic spread wasn’t a real thing. (Again, it would be the first time in the history of viruses that this occurred). So, if the vaccine prevents symptoms, thus rendering all recipients as asymptomatic…I’m confused. It sounds like a big fat lie.
There is also the high likelihood that Fauci knew more than he admitted in March, but as he has been wont to do, squashed a potential Trump victory by playing politics. A frighteningly illuminating article was posted to American Thinker on January 3rd with compelling evidence that a vaccine could have been well into development by January – even prior to the initial hysteria. The entire article is worth a reading, but a quick highlight includes evidence that the CDC, NIH, and Fauci himself were already researching a vaccine for a virus that had infected less than 100 people at the time. Moderna, one of the first companies to receive emergency use authorization for the COVID vaccine, even released in a press statement that it was collaborating with, among other partners, the NIAID. Fauci is the head of the NIAID.
Why is this not widely known? A huge hat tip to American Thinker for revealing this.
Finally, and this can be taken with a grain of salt, but there are videos in which Fauci couldn’t even remember what arm he supposedly received the vaccine. Is this important? I don’t know. Some family members that also received the vaccine said their arms weren’t sore, so there is the possibility that absent a sore spot, it would be easier to miss. Coupled with his hectic schedule and age, it is also likely that it was a simple mistake.
But – and this is crucial – Fauci has completely destroyed his credibility to the point that every mistake is now deservedly put under the microscope.
In a bewildering agreement to participate with Bob Woodward in a recorded interview, President Trump stated that he downplayed the virus in an attempt to urge calm among Americans, prevent panic, and present a strong front. Despite Woodward’s and the media’s push to show how clueless Trump was with regard to pandemic policies, it was obvious that the president was simply managing a country of 350 million people. Both the empty shelves in grocery stores and nine months of pure panic porn by vast numbers of people are proof the president knew what he was talking about.
Fauci might have come to the defense of the President in that moment, but the rest of his speech and decisions that these articles have presented offer a more fear- and confusion-driven public persona.
Compare this treatment to more recent developments of a supposedly new and more aggressive strain of COVID coming out of the U.K. If we follow the left’s logic up to this point (locking down and taking the original strain super seriously), then it stands to reason that we would take a more aggressive and virulent strain even more seriously. Right?
In a December 21st news article from the U.K.’s Independent, the headline reads “Fauci urges calm over new mutant Covid strain.” What? It’s worth noting that “dozens of countries have put UK travel bans in place.” It’s also worth noting that Fauci has been wrong before on travel bans. Does China ring a bell? There are two possibilities: Either Fauci himself doesn’t believe the lies that this is a super strain, or he wants the U.S. to become overwhelmed by the mutant variation and be able to impose his will vis-a-vis mandatory vaccines, covid passports, and every other immoral, illegal, and evil whim.
“NO ONE COULD DO BETTER”
In late March, Anthony Fauci sat down with Mark Levin for an interview. (I have left the interview in its original form; any typo comes from the transcription). Here is how that interview began:
Mark Levin: “Welcome back. Dr. Fauci, let me ask you a question. You’ve been doing this a long time. Have you ever seen this big of a coordinated response by an administration to such a threat? A health threat?”
Anthony Fauci: “Well, we’ve never had a threat like this and the coordinated response has been, there are a number of adjectives to describe it. Impressive, I think is one of them.
I mean, we’re talking about all-hands on-deck is that I, as one of many people on a team, I’m not the only person, since the beginning that we even recognized what this was. I have been devoting almost full time on this — almost full time.
I’m down at the White House virtually every day with the Taskforce. I’m connected by phone throughout the day and into the night and when I say night, I’m talking twelve, one, two in the morning. I’m not the only one. There’s a whole group of us that are doing that. It’s every single day.
So I can’t imagine that that under any circumstances that anybody could be doing more. I mean, obviously, we’re fighting a formidable enemy — this virus. This virus is a serious issue here.”
A few things stand out. Fauci calls the response impressive. He notes how late people stay up. And the quote that drives the left nuts now is how Fauci recognizes that no one could do more under the circumstances.
It was a rare show of solidarity between Fauci and Trump. It was probably healthy for the country. But, given that the virus was weaponized from Day 1, this quote wouldn’t stand come election time. The president included Fauci’s words in an ad that ran in October as the election date neared. It was immediately decried as being taken out of context.
I posted the original interview. Was it taken out of context? Or is it more likely that Fauci caved to his political leanings and flopped around like a fish out of water when he was being perceived as an abettor in the Trump reelection campaign?
Will there be a Part 4 to this series?