Two Recommended Reads Re Fauci
I’ll keep this brief.
The first article focuses on Fauci’s anticipated federal payout:
It was revealed recently that Dr. Anthony Fauci is entitled to the largest-ever federal retirement benefits package. After a senate hearing dustup this week, there may also be a bill named after the “uniquely compensated individual”
Word gets out that you’re set to receive the biggest federal retirement package in U.S. history, and you’ve got to expect it won’t sit well with everyone on Capitol Hill.
But be that person and call a sitting U.S. senator a moron, and he might just name a bill after you.
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) announced Thursday he plans to introduce a bill named after Dr. Anthony Fauci after he clashed with the nation’s top infectious diseases expert at a Senate hearing earlier this week.
Fauci was caught on a “hot mic” calling Marshall “a moron” after Marshall asked him about his annual salary and financial disclosures. Fauci appeared incredulous at the line of questioning and Marshall’s staff’s apparent inability to track down the publicly available information.
Fauci’s big salary boost came in 2004 under the George W. Bush Administration when he received a “permanent pay adjustment” for his biodefense work to “appropriately compensate him for the level of responsibility.” From 2004 through 2007, Fauci received a 68% pay increase from $200,000 to $335,000 per year.
The second article raises interesting questions.
It’s well known that Fauci’s initial reaction to news that Covid was spreading to the US was a measured one. Jeffrey Tucker describes that reaction in his article:
BY JEFFREY A. TUCKER JANUARY 15, 2022
We’ll be putting together the timeline of this disaster for many years to come. It all comes down to those fatal days between January and March 2020, from the news out of China, to the lockdowns in Northern Italy, to the lockdowns in the US.
The documented and admitted record is clear and this is the source of scandal, in my view. Top public health officials in the US, UK, and Australia spent the good part of six weeks obsessing over whether the virus was a lab leak, accidental or deliberate, and therefore what the political spin should be if it turned out to be true.
Something certainly happened to change the script in the last week of February. On February 25, 2020, Anthony Fauci wisely told CBS News the following: “You cannot avoid having infections since you cannot shut off the country from the rest of the world… Do not let the fear of the unknown…distort your evaluation of the risk of the pandemic to you relative to the risks that you face every day…do not yield to unreasonable fear.”
The next day, something shifted. …￼
Suddenly, lockdowns were on the table. And we know what happened next. Fauci and Dr. Birx worked over the coming weeks to warm Trump up to the idea, culminating in the March 16, 2020, press conference that announced lockdowns to the nation.
What followed, as Tucker recounts in highly readable fashion. The known risks from Covid were known, even at that early date. Early news reports informed us what has remained true to the present: pretty much the only people at significant risk were elderly people with significant co-morbidities. Young people were not a risk.
Everyone on planet Earth knew this two weeks before the lockdowns. …
…, we could have done exactly what Fauci said we should do on February 25: “Do not let the fear of the unknown…distort your evaluation of the risk of the pandemic to you relative to the risks that you face every day…do not yield to unreasonable fear.”
Protect the old. Let the young live their lives. Research on the best means of treatment. Minimizing fatalities on the road to endemicity. In other words, the Great Barrington Declaration.
It’s not rocket science.
But all of a sudden that changed.
Instead, all hell broke loose with wild and experimental lockdowns that seemed designed for the whole population to avoid the virus – well, not the whole population but the professional Zoom class in particular while “essential workers” exposed themselves to the disease. Other outrages included especially exposing elderly people rather than protecting them. Schools were closed. The medical system locked down. In other words, the policy response was the opposite of what public health would have recommended.
And so Tucker’s question is: What happened?
He has no answer.
Why did this happen? Why did Farrar, Fauci, Collins, Birx, and the whole rest of the gang that had been living on burner phones and holding secret meetings for a full month not openly explain to the public the risks and what to do about them? Why did they choose instead a policy of lockdowns, panic, and disorientation that resulted in astonishing economic, social, cultural, and political carnage?
We’ll be asking these questions for a very long time. …
Figuring out why sound public-health practice was rejected in favor of lockdowns is the job of writers and researchers for many years to come. But this much we know already. We had the information we needed to rationally address this threat. We had the experience and knowledge we needed to approach this responsibly and scientifically. A very small group of people on both sides of the Atlantic chose a different path.
Kinda sounds like a conspiracy, doesn’t it? The question is, who will be giving Fauci a medal this time around?