Dr. Anthony Fauct
Dr. Cory Franklin, Tribune News Service
Below are some questionable actions Dr. Anthony Fauci took during the pandemic years as America’s COVID-19 czar:
He gave conflicting advice about masks to the public: first saying they weren’t necessary, then changing his stance and even wearing one at an outdoor baseball game. Or he wore it intermittently and took it off frequently.
In an attempt to reassure the public, he misrepresented the percentage of people who require vaccination to achieve herd immunity (which the United States never achieved).
For months, insufficient attention was paid to the importance of aerosol spread of the virus.
He downplayed the effects of lockdowns on schools and the economy.
He participated in a campaign to discredit scientists who held opposing positions on the management of the pandemic, including the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration.
He gave misleading and non-direct answers about US involvement in research on viral manipulation, so-called gain-of-function research.
He dismissed the possibility that a laboratory leak was the source of the coronavirus.
He advocated for a 6-foot social distancing policy and then admitted that he knew of no studies to support the rule. There was a scientific basis, but it turned out to be inapplicable to COVID-19.
He claimed to be apolitical although he aligned himself with Democrats in his public comments.
In the post-COVID-19 review, he showed reluctance to take responsibility for the mistakes he and his team had made.
In Fauci’s defense, there were extenuating circumstances for some of these failures. His advice on masks and his prediction about herd immunity were given early in the pandemic, when information was still preliminary and uncertainty was high. He deserves the benefit of the doubt on those issues, just as he might deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the 6-foot distancing rule. He might also deserve to be excluded from the discussion of the importance of aerosol spread and the social effects of lockdowns, which were not appreciated by many experts at the time. For the other charges — suppressing public debate, politicizing the pandemic as a justification for overuse of government authority and lack of accountability — there are no excuses.
His supporters would say that those negatives are outweighed by the reassurance he provided to the public and his emphasis on promoting vaccination. That is for each individual to decide. But whatever the verdict, a prosecution or persecution of Fauci is not warranted. On the facts we have now, he does not merit a criminal investigation as critics such as business giant Elon Musk and US Senator Rand Paul have suggested. This is not the post-war Soviet Union or East Germany or communist China of the 2020s, where doctors and scientists were prosecuted as political agents and enemies of the state. We need a thorough investigation of what our scientific elite did during the COVID-19 pandemic, but in the name of open inquiry, not a witch hunt.
It would serve no purpose to subject Fauci, one of America’s most prominent scientists and beloved by half the country, to criminal scrutiny, and would, in fact, serve some very bad purposes. First, there is little evidence that he has broken any laws. The closest his opponents can come is to accuse him of “lying to Congress” about gain-of-function research, a broad charge that could certainly be defended on technical grounds. That’s not to say Fauci was acting in good faith when he answered questions before Congress; it’s just that he wasn’t acting criminally. He’s not the first, nor will he be the last, to testify before Congress in this way. Second, turning state investigative powers against a leading scientist would have a chilling effect on the entire scientific community. The last thing we want is for young scientists to look over their shoulders as they do their work; we want them to pursue research goals, useful truths, and public health solutions.
I don’t want to exonerate him of his mistakes, but investigating Fauci would be blatant politicization of science, something Fauci himself can be accused of. There are many scientists who have and will continue to introduce politics into science, which in itself is a violation of honest scientific inquiry. Government officials have no business engaging in that. The late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously said, “Advisers advise, ministers decide.” The balance between the scientific community and policymakers is a fragile one. Some tension between the two is necessary and even desirable. The scientists on the Manhattan Project did not always get along with the politicians in charge of the project, but that tension helped them achieve their ultimate goal more quickly. During the COVID-19 pandemic, that balance was completely upset by both scientists and politicians: the public health community, including Fauci, through the excessive arrogance of their public pronouncements, and politicians like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who pursued disastrous and unscientific policies (sending elderly COVID-19 patients back to nursing homes) or California Governor Gavin Newsom, who dined at a fancy French restaurant during California’s coronavirus surge. It will take years for public health authorities and the public to trust each other again. It will take much longer if politicians decide to embark on a legal crusade against Fauci. He is far from innocent, but he is by no means a criminal, and America does not need such a spectacle.
&w=1200&resize=1200,0&ssl=1)
