Why Fauci Struck a Nerve - and 5 more diary updates
The media should at least aspire to explain and understand why so many feel so strongly-- they have failed to do so.
Anthony Fauci pleads the fifth in front of Congress, and it appears views are divided on his conduct. Is he a wrongly persecuted hero, or a criminal? The NYPost, Fox have reached one-side, while NyTimes, WaPo, continue to fan-girl.
I am surprised that many of my colleagues in medicine and the media can’t even correctly articulate why Anthony Fauci has struck a nerve. Before I discuss some recent updates from the week— from the hearings and his diary— I think it is worth at least trying to understand why millions of Americans feel strongly about him.
It isn’t because he was wrong. Scientists are wrong all the time. Some scientists are mostly wrong. A few scientists are nearly always wrong. Science is quite forgiving towards people who are wrong. That’s not it.
It also isn’t because society coerced us to do things. Public health and society coerces you to do many things, and prevents you from doing many things. From wearing a helmet to not driving drunk— people largely accept these things. These interventions are not the result of one or two people, but large movements spanning years. And these interventions don’t create backlash even when the data are dubious— e.g bicycle helmet laws. People largely accept them as they are the process of consensus building over long periods.
Instead, Fauci is the rare scientist who checked a series of boxes that together generates ire. He (a) alone or with only a small group made decisions that (b) coerced hundreds of millions to do and not do a series of debatable actions (c ) while being largely incorrect (d ) unable to admit uncertainty or doubt (e) unable to gather more evidence (f) demonizing scientists who disagreed and, as we now know, (e) while keeping a diary that reveals he often did not believe what he was saying.
That’s a really unique series of events for a scientist. And to do it on so massive a scale. As a general rule in science, if you coerce people to do something — which their intuition questions— you better be near certain. Fauci was near guessing.
If you can’t even understand why Fauci would anger so many people— if you think it is all scapegoating— you should do more self reflection. He was a singularly influential public health leader making sweeping pronouncements, which affected people’s daily lives.
Naturally some will think this:
Fauci supporters might argue that he didn’t force your kids to do that— but didn’t he? He did support a cloth masking policy, for kids as young as 2, and he did press that policy upon the TV news, and privately in calls with politicians (as the diary captures)— he is a huge reason— perhaps the predominant reason— that policy exists. And then in his diary this week, we learned part of his rationale— perhaps a big part— was that he saw some folks doing it around town— not anything science based.
I have doctor friends who were called by their daycare and told they would have to pick up their two year old if s/he can’t wear a cloth mask— while they were working in the hospital. I have known folks who feared being thrown off an airplane for the same crime— 2 year old non-compliance.
Fauci’s diary also reveals he called Bill DeBlasio to support school closure. He supported visitor restriction in nursing home— which meant many people died without holding a loved one’s hand. He was the architect and promoter of these policies, and later would distance himself from it— perhaps when people weren’t “doing it already”
Take another example the media can’t explain.
Many scientists believed that the covid-19 vaccine could stop transmission— particularly between Jan - May of 2021. The emergence of escape variants changed this, and then it became the case that infection was certain to follow vaccination by the summer. Fauci is not being faulted for being wrong in May. After Provincetown, the world changed. The American people would not care if the story ended here.
Instead, Fauci with Vivek Murthy and others in the administration pushed for a vaccine mandate in Oct and Nov of that year. Long after they knew the vaccine could not halt transmission and infection was inevitable. That violated the rule of medical mandates— that you have to prove a third party benefit (larger than burden). There could be no third party benefit if infection was certain to follow. Fauci admits this in his diary— saying it would undermine DOJ’s arguments for mandates. On a technical note— waning over time, means with a long enough time horizon risk is 100%, which undermines the argument entirely.
That mandate meant many people were fired from work— retired early— were pushed out of employment. Some people worked in health care and got covid and recovered on the job and were still fired for not complying later. This was also a Fauci policy— to give no credit to prior infection. (another error with human impact).
I warned repeatedly that summer in a series of op-eds that this policy was an overuse of power, but Fauci embraced it.
His diary reveals his intoxication with power— it seems he was drunk on getting people to do things, and reveling in the attention it brought. Do reporters at the New York Times and WaPo really not see this?
More revelations from the diary that should be front page news.
Here Fauci says contact tracing is a sham. This is true! John Ioannidis told me this privately that year as well.
Here Fauci says people are wearing them anyway— as a reason to recommend cloth masking, as part of his famous 10 week flip flop in March/ April 2020.
Here Fauci is discussing a CIA briefing that he received saying Chinese admit lab leak is the culprit
Here Fauci says the market WAS NOT THE SOURCE 2/26/2020
And here a day later 2/27/2020, he lies to Howard Bauchner and says it was the market!
Had Fauci retired in 2019, he would be a hero in medicine. He stayed for several years thereafter to assume the role as: world’s most influential doctor. Had he embraced uncertainty, funded randomized studies, made public statements, but stopped short of recommending mandates or coercion— he would still be a hero. Had he created town halls of experts and invited Jay Bhattacharya and others to debate— again hero.
But he pushed his luck. He didn’t just explain the science, he advocated for specific policies that coerced people to do and not do things (school closure), he did this with massive uncertainty. He did affect the lives of hundreds of millions— perhaps billions given global influence— and then, he was sadly, mostly incorrect, mostly wrong, and mostly harmful.
He continues to prop up a narrative that relies of a biased and broken media ignoring a growing mountain of evidence that he was dishonest in his public statements. That his sweeping recommendations were often based on more more than ”vibes.”
And that he did all this, while fawning over himself— calling himself a rockstar, saying that he was the most famous person in the world, posting a portrait of himself above his desk, and upset when Ashish Jha started to steal the spotlight from him. The diary reeks of narcissism, and intoxication with the ability to control people.
Fauci is to the covid response, what Cheney was to the Iraq war. Imagine if we found a diary by Cheney saying he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and btw he actually funded Saddam himself.
Two more things. Some argue that Fauci was ‘just doing his job as best he could’.
Almost none of what Fauci did falls under the job of NIAID director. He volunteered repeatedly to take the work of the CDC, white house and other parts of HHS. His diary reveals a compulsion to get more and more limelight, reveling that a beer was named after him and that he had a bobble head doll.
If I walk into a restaurant, go into the kitchen and take over the work of chef: commanding others to add more salt to the meals, actually no salt, wait, no double salt! then I shouldn’t be surprised to see a Yelp review saying the food was terrible.
Two: the NYtimes says there was no evidence research Fauci funded set off lab leak. I think many people confuse biologic evidence for intelligence.
If someone says a waiter peed in the soup, you can try to run a mass spectrometer to find evidence of pee. And you can debate the reading and the rates of urea. But if another waiter saw him peeing in the soup you may conclude he peed in the soup. This is precisely the evidence CIA showed Fauci and the basis for intelligence determinations.
If I could give this post a thousand likes, I would. Welcome back, Dr. Prasad. Thank you for capturing what so many of us felt then and now.