We've been living with Dr. Anthony Fauci for over three months. What have we learned about the man whose opinion has steered the bulk of the U.S. COVID-19 response?
We know he's a doctor and scientist. He's also a longtime bureaucrat. Fauci was appointed Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in 1984. The NIAID is a subset of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one of 27 institutes under the NIH umbrella.
Fauci has held the position for 37 years, more than three times longer than any of his predecessors. Despite several offers to move up to higher positions, such as heading the NIH, he has stayed put. To put that in context, he got the job he holds now as a 43 year-old man. He will be 80 in December.
It would seem that he enjoys the freedoms and power the position affords him. Fauci has grown the NIAID budget from just under $320 million in 1984 to nearly $3 billion last year. He has done so in a methodical manner that consists of five steps:
As the saying goes, there's no money in the cure, and Fauci is no dummy. He graduated at the top of his class in medical school at Cornell before interning at New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, then in 1968, he joined the NIH where he rose quickly through the ranks. He has worked under the NIH umbrella through ten presidential administrations.
As millions of Americans learned in the first segment of the Plandemic movie, Dr. Judy Mikovits witnessed Fauci sandbag her team's attempts to bring an HIV/AIDS treatment to development. Further, she testified that the drug Suramin, which she claims showed great results in treating autism, was denied approval as treatment. Other studies confirm Mikovits' findings. That said, Suramin is not approved by the FDA for treating autism. The long battle to run larger tests is ongoing.
The pattern reemerges: Big Pharma rejects or drags its feet when an older, generic drug proves useful...in order to repeat the 5 step process above.
CDMedia readers are familiar with how Fauci has muddied the water with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). So is Mikovits, who completes the picture of Fauci's pattern: he takes away or maligns drugs that work in the here and now in order to gain funding and build labs to create newer, more profitable drugs.
"The AMA was saying doctors will lose their license if they use hydroxychloroquine, the anti-malarial drug that's been on the list of essential medicine worldwide for 70 years. Dr. Fauci calls that 'anecdotal.' It's not storytelling if we have thousands of pages of data...this is essential medicine, and they keep it from the people...that's exactly what's going on with COVID-19. The game is to prevent the therapies until everyone is infected, and then push the vaccine."--Dr. Judy Mikovits
As we have reported, several dishonest studies have come out concerning HCQ. The pattern is clear: small, often observational (i.e., not clinical) studies, patients with comorbidities (other chronic, fatal diseases), no zinc administered or no Z-pak to fight infections occurring during treatment, very elderly patients more likely to die, and administering the drug in the 11th hour instead of at early onset, when it is proven to be most effective.
Who has led the charge to spike HCQ? Tony Fauci.
On this charge alone he should lose his position on the task force. But Fauci was also complicit in the wrong-by-magnitudes IMHE model that predicted 2 million U.S. deaths. He had plenty of chances to speak as clearly to the actual threat of the virus as he did in the New England Journal of Medicine in March.
If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high--Dr. Fauci, New England Journal of Medicine
as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%)
It was a smart move. Publish the truth in a journal primarily read by the medical community, but in public, continue to stoke fear and ignore effective, existing treatments by slow-rolling trials. At the same time, Fauci stated that deaths could reach the infamous 2.2 million mark without mitigation on March 30.
The numbers were revised downward three more times, but a panic button can't be un-pushed. At first, Fauci and Birx took credit for the wild estimate, "admitting" that they were the "experts" behind the modeling, but later admitted to following disgraced Dr. Neil Ferguson's modeling. Ferguson "resigned" from his UK-based coronavirus task force after he was caught out on May 6th with his married lover, disobeying the very lockdown he championed.
Ferguson, known by some as "Professor Lockdown," and others as the "Master of Disaster," has failed on a massive scale many times before.
Elon Musk calls Ferguson an “utter tool” who does “absurdly fake science.” Jay Schnitzer, an expert in vascular biology and a former scientific direct of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in San Diego, tells me: “I’m normally reluctant to say this about a scientist, but he dances on the edge of being a publicity-seeking charlatan.”
Indeed, Ferguson’s Imperial College model has been proven wildly inaccurate. To cite just one example, it saw Sweden paying a huge price for no lockdown, with 40,000 COVID deaths by May 1, and 100,000 by June. Sweden now has 2,854 deaths and peaked two weeks ago. As Fraser Nelson, editor of Britain’s Spectator, notes: “Imperial College’s model is wrong by an order of magnitude.”
Indeed, Ferguson has been wrong so often that some of his fellow modelers call him “The Master of Disaster.”
Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Charlotte Reid, a farmer’s neighbor, recalls: “I remember that appalling time. Sheep were left starving in fields near us. Then came the open air slaughter. The poor animals were panic stricken. It was one of the worst things I’ve witnessed. And all based on a model — if’s but’s and maybe’s.”
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.
Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.--National Review
Ferguson isn't a sage or an oracle. He's the guy Parliament trots out when panic is required.
For following the sensational predictions of a charlatan, then passing them off as his own, then passing the buck back to Ferguson after he was publicly humiliated: this is the first solid reason why Fauci should lose his position at the NIAID. His borrowed bad science, the back-of-a-cocktail-napkin scribblings of a quack, which caused the shutdown of the U.S. economy.
Fauci did all this while recklessly pushing through a newer, unproven drug that was not only already in production, but sudden, mass production--well before any approval had been given.
As reported by the Gateway Pundit (see article in tweet link below), Gilead Sciences began producing vast quantities of Remdesivir in February, long before it had received FDA approval. What could make them so confident?
In the article above, note especially the chart linking the CCP, George Soros, and Gilead Sciences. On January 21, none other than the state-controlled Wuhan Institute of Virology applied for a patent to use Remdesivir, Fauci's drug of choice to treat COVID-19, soon to become "the new standard of care" in the U.S., as he proclaimed on April 30.
Fauci surely knows the evidence of the benefits of HCQ. To ignore it in order to push an experimental, very costly drug (Remdesivir is $1,000 per dose), has cost untold American lives. This is the second substantive reason Fauci should be fired from his NIAID post: bad medicine and profiteering.
Lastly, it is the inescapable problem of the gain-of-function research that Fauci promoted, paid for, and defended that gave the world COVID-19 in the first place. As CDMedia has reported, gain-of-function (GOF) is the process of exposing the virus to animal hosts until it mutates, and repeating this process with each mutated strain until a strain is sufficiently transmissible to cause a pandemic.
Then, researchers can work to create a vaccine for the virus strain.
Fauci claims we have to do this to understand how pandemics occur and how to cure them. Dear reader, you'd be well within reason to think it sounds an awful lot like intentionally producing a biological warfare agent, to then profit from its cure.
GOF research is what NIAID-funded scientists were performing in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The NIH itself had misgivings about GOF, and stopped funding in 2014 despite Fauci's strong objections. When did the NIH lift the ban? Just a year after President Trump was elected.
The timing makes Fauci’s remarks, captured in this 2017 video, all the more frightening. Fauci stated that a “surprise outbreak” would occur during the Trump administration, and, “There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases.”
For this third reason--Fauci's NIAID paying a Chinese lab to produce pandemic strains of viruses, one of which was leaked by accident, or intentionally spread--Fauci should be fired, and the NIAID investigated.
Subscribe to our evening newsletter to stay informed during these challenging times!!