Almost from the outset of the Wuhan Lab virus, Dr. Anthony Fauci has been under fire for flip-flopping on the relevance of wearing face masks, how the virus is spread, and social distancing rules.

As multiple doctors and hospitals revealed success with treating COVID patients with inexpensive drugs like hydroxychloroquine and anti-parasitic medicine, Ivermectin, the media joined Dr. Fauci and Democrat lawmakers to mock them for touting the benefits of the life-saving drugs. Big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter slapped “fake news” and “misleading” labels on articles posted by users that discussed alternative medicines and vitamins to fight the Wuhun virus pandemic. Their paid third-party censorship teams shut down discussions about alternative treatments on their platforms and punished users who promoted anti-lockdown rallies on their platforms.

Recently, Dr. Fauci found himself in hot water when Senator Rand Paul called for the NIAID director’s resignation during his appearance before the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. Sen. Rand Paul has been a frequent critic of Fauci’s, believing that he played a role in the spread of COVID by funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  “The facts are clear. The NIH did fund gain of function research in Wuhan despite your protestations,” said Paul, claiming that Fauci’s “persistent denials … are not simply a stain on your reputation but are a clear and present danger to the country and to the world.”

Senator Paul went on to accuse Fauci of changing the definition of gain-of-function, saying,  “There’s the preponderance of evidence now points towards this coming from the lab and what you’ve done is change the definition on your website to try to cover your ass.”  Fauci denied the Senator’s accusations, including the accusation that the NIH is still supporting research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Sen. Paul pressed him further, saying, “You won’t admit that it’s dangerous. And for that lack of judgment, I think it’s time that you resign”.

Today, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee are holding hearing to “examine a federal perspective on the COVID-19 response, focusing on addressing new variants.”

During their hearing, things got quite heated between Dr.Fauci and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).

Senator Paul began his remarks by calling out Dr. Fauci’s recent remarks where he recently claimed that anyone criticizing a govenrment official like Fauci, who “rules by mandate,” and would “claim unilaterally to represent science” and that “any criticism of him would be criticizing science itself,” is “quite dangerous.”

Senator Paul explained how recent emails exposed Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci using government resources to tto take down three prestigious doctors who disagreed with his mandates, calling them “fringe” epidimiogists.

“A published takedown doesn’t exactly conjur up the image of a disapassionate scientist. Instead of engaging them on the merits, you and Dr. Collins sought to smear them as ‘fringe’ and take them down as scientists.” He continued, “This is not only antithetical to the scientific method, it’s the epitome of cheap politics, and it’s reprehensible Dr. Fauci.”

“Do you really think it’s appropriate to use your $420,ooo salary to attack scientists that disagree with you?”

Senator Paul called out Dr. Fauci for his continued efforts to hide the truth about the funding of the gain of function that led to the pandemic.

Dr. Fauci tried to deflect, accusing Senator Paul of personal attacks on him when people are dying, and that’s when Dr. Rand Paul landed the knockout blow…

“Do you think anybody has had anymore influence on our response to this than you have? Do you think it’s been a success?”

“More people have died now under President Biden than did under President Trump…You are the one responsible, you are the lead architect for the response from the government and now 800,000 people have died.”


Dr. Rand Paul was referring to the multiple emails between Dr. Anthony Fauci and former NIH Director Francis Collins that were recently released showing a coordinated effort to take down three prominent epidemiologists, possibly placing Fauci in the hot seat, once again.

According to the Daily Mail, Dr. Fauci and the head of the National Institute of Health (NIH) colluded on a way to discredit an alternative plan to deal with COVID from a group of experts, released emails reveal.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIH Director Francis Collins

The emails, some of which were tweeted out on Saturday by Phil Magness, senior research faculty and interim research and education director at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), show Fauci and Francis Collins attempting to coordinate a ‘devastating takedown’ of the Great Barrington Declaration.

In an October 8 email from Collins to Fauci, the head of the NIH calls the GBD the work of ‘three fringe epidemiologists’ that ‘seems to be getting a lot of attention.’

NIH Director Francis Collins adds that ‘there needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don’t see anything like that online yet – is it underway?’

The “three fringe epidemiologists” Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

AIER, a libertarian think tank, sponsored the declaration, which largely abandons lockdowns in favor of a herd immunity strategy that allows life to return to normal.

Later in the day, Fauci sends Collins a Wired op-ed that refutes the notion of herd immunity stopping the pandemic.

Later in the day, Fauci sends along a piece from wired that Fauci said ‘debunks this theory,’ which relies heavily on ending lockdowns and herd immunity

Collins then sends Fauci an op-ed in The Nation, also trashing the GBD.

Fauci sends him along another op-ed from The Nation Magazine trashing the Great Barrington Declaration

A few days later, Collins emails Fauci a Washington Post op-ed he’s quoted in headlined ‘Proposal to hasten herd immunity to the coronavirus grabs White House attention but appalls top scientists.’

Collins – working under former President Donald Trump at the time – said, ‘my quotes are accurate but will not be appreciated in the [White House].’

Fauci responds: ‘They are too busy with other things to worry about this. What you said was entirely correct.’

Later, Gregg Gonsalves – the writer of The Nation op-ed – sends Collins an email thanking him with a subject line that includes saying legendary AIDS activist Larry Kramer ‘would be proud.’

Collins responds with a smiley face.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya tweeted about the leaked emails, saying: “So now I know what it feels like to be the subject of a propaganda attack by my own government. Discussion and engagement would have been a better path.”

The Great Barrington Declaration:  As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their homes. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick, should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport, and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

What do you think? Is it Dr. Fauci or the NIH director’s job to discredit prominent epidemiologists who hold opposing views on how to handle the Wuhan pandemic? Is that how science is supposed to work?

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.