The many faux pas by Dr.Fauci since the beginning of 2020 show how he has failed the public he is supposed to serve. What is his true personality? Is he really a public servant? Or is something else going on with him? Some suggest he is nothing more than an attention whore. Maybe a clue to be had since he has been a part of the national consciousness as a leading health expert since the 1980s and the fight against AIDS. That is being in the public limelight for a long time.
While he has risen to the top of the biomedical establishment as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), he has gone no farther. Certainly, a number of people have had issues with him. There are allegations that he mismanaged at least one clinical trial, that he failed to deliver on his promise for an AIDS vaccine, that he was disciplined for recruiting scientists for his start up companies during tax-payer funded events.
There is a history here which needs even further investigation. Besides the now much researched connections between Dr. Fauci, the PREDICT program, USAID, EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Lab, has been the announced resumption of this program on the tax payer dollar. As some would suggest, the fraud continues. Noteworthy also is the way he mishandled the debate over hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). The prejudice was obvious and the media played along. It just seems like the case against Dr. Fauci keeps piling up. Dr. Fauci is looking more and more like Dr. Jekyll.
THE FAUCI FRAUD PRINCIPLES
DENY THE TRUTH
IGNORE THE FACTS
IGNORE YOUR CONTRADICTIONS
KEEP TALKING
The three areas where investigation is called for is masks, herd immunity, testing technology and vaccine efficacy. The nature of the investigation would be to identify all his associations over the years. He is clearly “plugged in” to all government agencies, major corporations, and foreign interests he claims to trust as well as leading universities around the world.
The other fundamental point is the range of cases where Dr. Fauci has shown bad judgement. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem noted recently just how wrong he has been. What is that all about? How can someone be that wrong, that often, as well as shift his positions so much without real evidence of the basis for his position and still not be fired?
Masks: Comply or Die
The single most flagrant fraud perpetrated by Dr. Fauci has to be his constant shape-shifting over the wearing of masks. His first opinion was expressed in March 2020 where he said masks were ineffective and should not be worn. A couple months later he strongly pushed wearing masks. Then for a couple more months he seemed to soften his position. Then, around December, he started to call for double-masking and more recently, triple masking.
An honest assessment of what research has addressed the efficacy of masking shows that the case of masks is weak at best. A study reported out in November involving volunteers in the U.S. Marine Corps showed that masks simply do not work. These findings have been ignored by Dr. Fauci and the media.
One study by the CDC showed the inferiority of cloth masks. Another study by the CDC claimed to show that masks slowed the rate of infection. However, that rate was roughly 0.5%. The margin of error was +/-5%. At a half of one percent, you might as well say it is not working.
Don’t worry. Dr. Fauci ignored this data and continued to talk like nothing has changed, and nothing has been learned. His failure to properly address these findings is just one more piece of his fraudulent conduct has cost this nation in lives and in the economy.
Some observers concluded that the insistence on masks betrays their desire to subjugate the masses. The mask is the perfect image of compliance. However, a variation on hypocrisy is “Subjugation for thee, but not for me.”
Herd Immunity
Dr. Fauci has admitted he lied about the standards for herd immunity. But he can be forgiven for lying because he is ignorant on the subject. At any other time, Dr. Fauci would have set herd immunity somewhere around 65% of the population. Since Covid, he has been so inconsistent, he finally had to admit he was not being straight with the public. Of course he did not say it in so many words, but by reading between the lines, it is clear his ever upward drift was meant to force greater use of vaccination.
His admission that he “failed” to include those people who already recovered from Covid shows how such an experienced and highly placed official cannot be trusted. He should be replaced with a more capable and trustworthy person.
But there is also an interesting idea which he has avoided completely. A paper in Science magazine on research into modeling herd immunity described work that used a completely different methodology. Below is an editor’s quote about the article.
“In response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), some politicians have been keen to exploit the idea of achieving herd immunity. Countering this possibility are estimates derived from work on historical vaccination studies, which suggest that herd immunity may only be achieved at an unacceptable cost of lives. Because human populations are far from homogeneous, Britton et al. show that by introducing age and activity heterogeneities into population models for SARS-CoV-2, herd immunity can be achieved at a population-wide infection rate of ∼40%, considerably lower than previous estimates. This shift is because transmission and immunity are concentrated among the most active members of a population, who are often younger and less vulnerable. If nonpharmaceutical interventions are very strict, no herd immunity is achieved, and infections will then resurge if they are eased too quickly.”
The key point is that previous models made simplistic assumptions that ignore the complexity of large populations. Again, because this work does not fit Fauci’s plan, this finding is ignored – regardless of whether it is right or not.
One no less than the late Kerry Mullis, Nobel Prize winner for PCR technology, called Fauci a fraud. Moreover, Kerry Mullis had also warned that PCR is not suitable as a diagnostic technology.
Diagnostic Testing for Covid
Time and further investigation will likely show that, at best, testing policies for Covid were mishandled and badly. However, can a case be made for the sense of panic that spanned March through May? How well one functions under pressure is a measure of character. Dr. Fauci seemed to pick up the torch for much greater testing around late April. As a point of history, this followed on Abbott’s stealing the march for testing with their small PCR-based machine in early March. By the time greater testing was being promoted, the FDA had given rapid approval to some 80 plus different products for both PCR testing and antibody testing. By the end of 2020, the number had grown to over 300 different products. Also, some number have been withdrawn from the market. Presumably, the rush to market was premature for some due to inadequate quality control procedures for production.
As time passed, the criticisms grew over the accuracy of PCR based tests. The most common criticism was the use of too many testing cycles per sample. There was a growing sense that there were way too many false positive results as a result of too many testing cycles.
The first point to consider here is what happened on January 20, 2021. Some claim the change was announced several days prior to the installation of Faux President Biden. But the link here shows the World Health Organization announced a change in the guidelines for establishing a positive result with PCR on January 20th. Prior to this change, critics pointed out that far too many cycles (e.g., 40 or more) were used to determine a positive result.
The wording of the WHO guidance seems a little vague to the uninitiated. But over the next three weeks, there was a precipitous -77% drop in positive results. With it, positive cases started dropping as well.
Some suggested the vaccine accounts for the drop in positive results. This link describes how health authorities in South Carolina are changing the calculation for determining positive results. A calculation? That’s it? This is the kind of thing that stinks of fraud. It is also the kind of thing that Dr. Fauci has failed to address. So, where does that put him?
Vaccine Efficacy Issues
Dr. Fauci has been the loudest proponent of mass vaccination as the way to eliminate the “Covid threat”. How it is that a 98%+ survival rate ever necessitated mass vaccination is one of those things he has never been asked or felt a need to explain. Common sense says it is ridiculous.
Several other arguments have not been visited when talking about vaccine efficacy.
Asymptomatic recovery
Vaccinating for an already high survival rate. What is the vaccine really doing then?
mRNA product quality actually being below quality control standards
What happens if only mRNA fragments get in the body?
At the heart of all the government emergency health policies of masking and social distancing has been this question: Can asymptomatic carriers of Covid infect other people? The confusion generated in the debate forced many governors to take the most cautious approaches. The lockdowns were due to the inability to answer this simple question. A whole other, and very long, article could be devoted to just this question.
One aspect of being asymptomatic is the absence of shedding virus in your blood. Even if you are shedding virus and asymptomatic, the degree of infectivity remains unclear. Why take a vaccine if you were asymptomatic and show signs of having had the Covid virus? Wouldn’t you already be immune?
Similarly, if your prospects for survival are very good, why get the vaccine? Then here comes an even more troubling question. What if the vaccine isn’t really working? If there is a 98%+ survival rate, with a huge part of the population showing no symptoms, though infected, then how do you know the vaccine is really working?
The short answer is you do not. All the clinical trials can show is whether or not you get sick. It gets worse. If the mRNA composition of the viruses is incorrect, then what happens? What if the mRNA is somehow decomposed, or not properly synthesized in manufacturing? The public will be thrilled to know that discussion has just started.
The British Medical Journal (DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n627) recently acquired leaked documents from the European Medicines Agency. Bioproduction methods were giving 55% yields of the mRNA. That is considered too low. The best part is this quote from the article “…regulators were unsure of the implications on safety and efficacy.” Great. Just to make the public feel better, just because of the emergency nature of the pandemic, regulators approved what would otherwise be a substandard project.
To put this another way, if they knew what an effective dose needed to be, say 50 nanograms, but they were only getting yields of 30 nanograms and the regulators went ahead and approved it, what should we expect? This suggests only mRNA fragments may be getting inside your cells. It is the same problem. There is a dangerous lack of knowledge on the subject. That so many of those vaccinated have shown no serious side effects begins to look like a miracle.
If there is a reason to not take the vaccine, it has to be from this quote from Prof. Daan J.A. Crommelin, “Experience with mRNA integrity is limited.” OK, because so much money was at stake, the regulators went ahead and approved it’s use anyway. As usual, the major drug companies are cagey and refuse to offer any in depth information on this issue. This becomes Dr. Fauci’s Ultimate Fraud. Wear it in good health, Dr.
A separate investigation in the process of deliberation used by the FDA to grant Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for these vaccines is needed. What is not clear to the public is that safety standards by the FDA can be adjusted. So, “safe” for EUAs is not the same as “safe” following full review. Vaccines historically require much longer periods. These issues are further compounded by the fact that mRNA as a “therapeutic molecule” is poorly understood, very very poorly understood. One parting example is that the prevailing belief is that the spike protein produced by the mRNA primer binds to ACE2 receptors. While little discussed, it is recognized that the spike protein may bind to other receptors. That is a whole other world yet to be explored by researchers.