How Fauci FAILED America - Your Must Read Today
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff itemize the many failures of Dr. Fauci in Newsweek
The official title of the article is “How Fauci Fooled America” but that’s a click-bait-y editor making that decision. The correct description would be “How Fauci FAILED America.”
Our intrepid authors call out Fauci for his refusal to recognize natural immunity. Actually, some of the best stuff in the article are the links to OTHER articles - bringing the receipts - like this quote from Fauci:
"When you are in a public health crisis, sometimes unusual situations require unusual actions," Dr. Anthony Fauci told the "Fox News Sunday" show. "In this case, it's things like mandating, be they masks or vaccinations."
Jay and Martin note:
Natural immunity. By pushing vaccine mandates, Dr. Fauci ignores naturally acquired immunity among the COVID-recovered, of which there are more than 45 million in the United States. Mounting evidence indicates that natural immunity is stronger and longer lasting than vaccine-induced immunity. In a study from Israel, the vaccinated were 27 times more likely to get symptomatic COVID than the unvaccinated who had recovered from a prior infection.
Next they talk about protecting the elderly and make some great recommendations:
What can we do now to minimize COVID mortality? Current vaccination efforts should focus on reaching people over 60 who are neither COVID-recovered nor vaccinated, including hard-to-reach, less-affluent people in rural areas and inner cities. Instead, Dr. Fauci has pushed vaccine mandates for children, students and working-age adults who are already immune—all low-risk populations—causing tremendous disruption to labor markets and hampering the operation of many hospitals.
It’s been a year almost to the day when Jay and Martin together with Sunetra Gupta penned another piece for Newsweek.
Some have argued that it is impossible to separate older and younger generations. While 100 percent separation is impossible, with the current lockdown and contact tracing strategy, we have "successfully" shifted infection risk from the professional class to the working class. With the focused protection measures outlined above, it will prove no more difficult to shift infection risk away from high-risk older people.
Jay and Martin continue on discussing school closures and masks. They point to a study I had forgotten about out of Finland and Sweden. ZERO school children deaths.
They point to a tremendous piece from Jordan S. where he itemizes ALL of the times Fauci called for the closing of schools.
Jay and Martin call out the nonsense of contact tracing and end noting the disastrous impact on the opinion of public health:
In private conversations, most of our scientific colleagues agree with us on these points. While a few have spoken up, why are not more doing so? Well, some tried but failed. Others kept silent when they saw colleagues slandered and smeared in the media or censored by Big Tech. Some are government employees who are barred from contradicting official policy. Many are afraid of losing positions or research grants, aware that Dr. Fauci sits on top of the largest pile of infectious disease research money in the world. Most scientists are not experts on infectious disease outbreaks. Were we, say, oncologists, physicists or botanists, we would probably also have trusted Dr. Fauci.
We owe a great debt of gratitude that these few individuals have stepped forward to inject some sanity into the debate.
They discussed natural immunity, but natural immunity made rolling out the shot "complicated," so they chose to ignore it.
Instead they said take the shot or lose your job, educational opportunities or ability to enter public buildings. Who cares about "the hesitant!?" The President is losing patience with them!
The callousness of these decision makers is scarier than their disregard for good science and medicine:
"Frieden told The BMJ that the question of leveraging natural immunity is a “reasonable discussion,” one he had raised informally with the CDC at start of rollout. “I thought from a rational standpoint, with limited vaccine available, why don’t you have the option” for people with previous infection to defer until there was more supply, he says. “I think that would have been a rational policy. It would have also made rollout, which was already too complicated, even more complicated.”"
And
"“It’s a lot easier to put a shot in their arm,” says Sommer. “To do a PCR test or to do an antibody test and then to process it and then to get the information to them and then to let them think about it—it’s a lot easier to just give them the damn vaccine.” In public health, “the primary objective is to protect as many people as you can,” he says. “It’s called collective insurance, and I think it’s irresponsible from a public health perspective to let people pick and choose what they want to do.”"
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101