Fauci's Deceit
Hi all. Just a short post to say I have a big piece out today with the Free Press. I believe it is not paywalled, so for any of my readers who have not already seen it, please check it out!
It’s an extensive account of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s deceptions and obfuscations regarding his support—as the former director of NIAID—of high-risk virology research and its connection to the possibility of a lab leak in Wuhan triggering the Covid pandemic. The article does not make an argument about the lab leak. Rather, it is about Fauci’s actions and public statements. For those who have not been following the story closely, I think it will be surprising and alarming.
One additional piece of evidence not in the piece:
Fauci often publicly referred to a paper, published in the journal Nature Medicine, that suggested the pandemic likely began from a natural origin. He called the paper a study. Except, the paper Fauci referred to was not a “study”—which implies deep analysis. It was a “correspondence,” which Nature Medicine explains is “a forum for discussion or to present a point of view… Correspondences should not contain new research data.”
It may seem picayune, but it’s an example of how language choices—that superficially appear neutral—can subtly but distinctly reframe evidence. It is not irrelevant that by using the term “study,” Fauci gave the paper’s conclusion far more weight and validity than it would have earned had he used the term “correspondence.”
Hang tight for an important new article from Silent Lunch later this week!
-Dave
Hi David, I'll read the piece in full but after reading the intro I wanted to note an inconsistency that is common to many commentators who may fairly be described as some variety of "Covid dissident": you highlight both Fauci's lies and hidden agenda, as well as the real possibility that his funding of GOF research at Wuhan may have led to a "global catastrophe," while also highlighting in your recent writings a key example of vast over-statements regarding asymptomatic spread.
Connecting the dots you may realize that in fact the "global catastrophe" that occurred was not from the virus but from the policy choices in response to the virus. We estimate in this essay that most Covid stats were exaggerated about 10x, which your essay on the asymptomatic Covid spread tests strongly supported: https://tamhunt.medium.com/how-covid-19-stats-are-grossly-exaggerated-a-brief-summary-of-the-arguments-53a5b4237c4c.
We may fairly blame a fair amount of that policy over-reach on Fauci and Co. also, b/c there was in fact a dramatic shift in US policy in very late Feb that coincided exactly with Fauci's learning about the strong possibility of a lab leak. So at that time, with the help of Pottinger, Birx, and many others, Fauci led an almost 180 in US Covid policy, including encouraging testing of asymptomatic people, lockdowns, etc. Of course there were many other players involved in these dynamics, including Gates, WHO, China CCP, US defense and intelligence communities, Big Pharma and Big Medicine, but Fauci and Co. were major players.
I'd love to see you write an essay reconciling these various pieces of evidence and illustrating just how seriously Fauci and Co. fucked things up royally, not only in funding GOF, concealing it, lying about it, and then doing a serious CYA policy effort in early 2020 that actually resulted in far more damage than the virus itself.
“Fauci referred to was not a “study”—which implies deep analysis. It was a “correspondence,” which Nature Medicine explains is “a forum for discussion or to present a point of view… Correspondences should not contain new research data.” “
Noticed that you pointed this out on The Hill today. Great piece and glad to see it featured in TFP!