Washington, DC — This is part 2 of a 3 part series. If you missed part one, you can find it here.
LARGE CONGREGATIONS AND DEMONSTRATIONS
By late April and May, it was apparent among thinking people that the lockdowns were not effective at slowing the spread of the virus. Coupled with devastating economic outcomes, especially for small businesses that were deemed nonessential (whereas major corporations like Home Depot and Wal-Mart remained open, with increased foot traffic), and the time was ripe for Americans to exercise some first amendment rights.
Over half of American states saw anti-lockdown protests, resulting in hundreds of thousands of Americans taking to the streets. Anthony Fauci immediately condemned the surge of citizens in the streets. He said this, on Good Morning America:
“If you jump the gun and go into a situation where you have a big spike, you’re going to set yourself back,” he said. “So as painful as it is to go by the careful guidelines of gradually phasing into a reopening, it’s going to backfire [if you reopen prematurely]. That’s the problem.”
The message was clear: Don’t protest in the streets, otherwise the lockdowns people were protesting would have to be prolonged because the protests would increase the spread of the virus. To his credit, it is a rational dispensing of logic. Large, non-masked, non-distanced crowds probably are more likely to spread the virus than small, masked, and distanced ones. It makes sense on the surface.
And that is what makes Fauci so irredeemably frustrating and absurd.
Not a month later, crowds that dwarfed the anti-lockdown protests both in terms of size and frequency took to the streets in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. While he was concerned about the possibility of spread, he would not condemn them the same way he had earlier protests.
This came to a head on July 31, when Fauci was in front of a group of Representatives who led a Coronavirus Crisis hearing. Jim Jordan (R-OH), asked him if protests should be limited, given that the large crowds contribute to the spread. He made the connection that Fauci had earlier recommended shutting down church services, restaurants, bars, baseball games, dating, and a host of other activities that might affect transmissions. Surely millions of people in the street would raise similar red flags.
Whereas Fauci has an opinion on everything, he must have known that if he answered honestly that he would be immediately canceled by Black Lives Matter. Since he likes his cameras and microphones and sudden savior-like worship by throngs of stupid people, the only good response was an evasive one. His reply to the question of whether or not protests should be limited?
“I don’t think that’s relevant.”
His reply to the question of where in the Constitution it says that some rights can be favored over others, for example shutting down faith-based activities and allowing violent clashes in city streets?
“I’m not favoring anybody over anybody. I’m just making a statement that’s a broad statement that avoid crowds of any type no matter where you are because that leads to the acquisition and transmission. I don’t judge one crowd versus another crowd.”
His reply to the question of how he justifies letting millions of people swarm the streets screaming while at the same time small business owners get arrested for daring to stay open and solvent?
“I’m saying that crowds, wherever the crowds are, can give you an increased probability that there’s going to be acquisition and transmission.”
Fauci is not only flip-flopping, he’s a cowardly fraud. The easy answer? All protests spread coronavirus and we should respond to them the same way. Instead, the medical community interpreted these specific protests as important, because there was a pandemic of racism in America, too. And Fauci wonders why people don’t trust or believe him?
HERD IMMUNITY PROJECTIONS
Anthony Fauci has been at the NIAID for over a half century. Combined with his premed work, he has been involved in medicine — at least nominally — for sixty years. That’s six decades of supposedly practicing science and leaning on data. You could easily be forgiven for mistaking his tenure as the director of the aforementioned institute with Joe Biden’s forty-seven years representing the disappointing state of Delaware in public office.
In terms of herd immunity, there is no magic number. For something virulent and easily transmitted such as measles, a higher percentage of vaccination or immunity is required. The measles is often cited as an example. A publication in the Lancet, which seems like a fair referral since the medical journal has proven it is more interested in leftist influence than intelligent science, showed that some population immunity rates can be as little as 10-20% depending on what the disease is and who contracts it first.
If the coronavirus is indeed a novel strain of which we knew nothing last year, I am fine offering the scientific community a little slack. They could have said something like this:
“We aren’t sure right now.”
“It seems highly contagious based on rates of transmission in certain communities.”
“We are modifying our projections and hypothesis based on new data.”
Of course, even if they said that now, how many people are still listening? I don’t have any faith in our scientific community. How can anyone? The CDC suggested that young black and statistically un-vulnerable people get ahead of old, white and statistically vulnerable people because…racial and social justice. This is not science.
At any rate, this isn’t how Fauci flipped and flopped his way around new estimates. He decided to flat out lie about herd immunity realities, similar to his “you don’t need masks” until he changed his tune to sing “you need masks or you will all die.” Initially, Fauci said that herd immunity would be achieved with something around 70-75% of community immunity, which was also never distinguished between natural antibodies from exposure or artificial antibodies via the vaccine. One can only presume he wants this number achieved through inoculation.
Most Americans probably assumed the 70-75% range was determined scientifically; for example, it made sense we doctors were saying that herd immunity is achieved when new hosts cannot be found. With 70% of Americans vaccinated, it would make it hard to maintain a rate of transmission that causes pandemics, given that for each new case, the ratio of potential additional cases would decrease. Again, it made sense and was even defended.
So why did the number change? New science and evidence? Nein. Fauci offered this explanation instead:
“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”
Put another way, he didn’t say science made new discoveries. He simply said he could manipulate expectations based on polling data. Again, this is the single-most influential doctor in America right now, and he formulated this response to the pandemic on surveys. Does he think surveys are ever wrong? I can show him 2016 and 2020 presidential polls.
While not exactly a flip-flop, the category of projected deaths deserves an honorable mention in the rundown of Fauci sins. The best science should always be seeking truth and answers, but Fauci’s evolution of new understanding is akin to a new fish developing legs and breathing air every single day.
Back in January and February of 2020, despite information coming out of China and cases slowly developing in the United States, Fauci was telling the American that nothing needed to change in their lives and that the virus wasn’t a severe threat. So there’s that.
By the middle of March, the disgraced director said the US could expect up to upwards of 1.7-2.2 million deaths due to coronavirus. By the end of March, Fauci suddenly downgraded his worst case scenario to 200,000 US coronavirus deaths. There are currently around 300,000 deaths attributed to coronavirus, but again, that number is essentially meaningless.
By the CDC’s own calculations, approximately just 6% of all deaths are due solely to COVID; otherwise, an average of 2.5 comorbidities like heart disease, diabetes, and obesity play a role in shaping a person’s response to the virus.
As an honorable mention within the section of honorable mentions, it’s worth noting that Joe Biden, who has said repeatedly he would rely heavily on advice from dangerous fools like Anthony Fauci, predicted during the presidential election that the number of deaths (at the time around 250,000) would double over the three winter months before his inauguration. With numbers dipping around the country, treatments readily available, and a vaccine humming along, that dire prediction should be seen as equally stupid.
Perhaps nothing quite captures the ridiculous doctoring by Anthony Fauci like the lighthearted and jovial conversations about Santa Claus and his immunity to the virus. Despite millions of Americans either dead, mourning the loss of a loved one (Biden reminded us that the empty chair at the table was Trump’s fault), depressed, lonely, and factors more out of work, Fauci nevertheless has taken multiple trips down the road of asininity to crack jokes about Santa.
And he can’t even keep the record straight on that.
In November, Fauci said that Santa has “a lot of good innate immunity.” The implication, obviously, is that no vaccine or transmission need be of concern.
More recently, Fauci appeared on CNN, where he responded to the question of a six-year-old child who seriously pondered whether or not Santa could deliver his presents in the age of coronavirus. Without missing a beat, Fauci amused himself by telling a story about traveling to the North Pole and vaccinating Santahimself.
Vaccination propaganda? You decide. Either way, it is despicable that Anthony Fauci condemns the American public to endless lies and unnecessary fatalities while simultaneously making light of Santa. He would probably tell kids Santa was real if it meant he could control their lives more.
How much longer will decent people tolerate the abuses of nincompoops like Anthony Fauci? The data on his speech and actions is conclusive: He cannot be trusted. Fauci is a career politician disguised as a medical researcher who has done significant harm not only to public health but to the American Constitution as well. Do you really need further proof?
If so, stay tuned for Part 3.
You can contact Parker through The Liberty Loft’s website. Be sure to subscribe to The Liberty Loft’s newsletter. If you enjoy our content, please consider donating to support The Liberty Loft and conservative media.