by Maryanne Demasi, PhD
This week, former White House physician Anthony Fauci, endured a two-day grilling under oath by members of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
It was the first time Fauci faced lawmakers since he stepped down from government duties in December 2022.
On the one hand, there was excitement that Fauci would be compelled to answer questions about policy decisions he made that irrevocably changed millions of lives.
On the other hand, Democrats were accusing Republican committee members of “politicising the greatest public health crisis of our time for their own partisan gain.”
Ohio Republican Brad Wenstrup, a physician and Chair of the subcommittee, said he wanted to press Fauci on questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and how to manage future pandemics.
Wenstrup’s committee had been investigating Fauci and other government officials over whether they actively suppressed information about a possible ‘lab leak’ and if they conspired to push the alternate theory that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin.
It was a closed-door hearing, so this summary is conditional, with much of the commentary surrounding Fauci’s testimony being relayed to the public by members of the committee.
After the first day of questioning, Wenstrup said Fauci couldn’t remember key details of the pandemic, responding to questions with “I do not recall” or “I don’t remember” over 100 or so times.
It was not the first time that Fauci developed acute amnesia under oath.
Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya pointed out on X that Fauci answered, “I don’t recall” approximately 174 times during his deposition in the free speech lawsuit, Missouri v Biden.
Fauci admitted the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered and accidentally released from a lab in Wuhan was credible, reportedly telling lawmakers that it was “not a conspiracy theory.”
This markedly contrasted Fauci’s public comments, and those of the academics who worked with Fauci to suppress discussion of a possible lab leak, and famously published a condemnation of such discourse in The Lancet.
Wenstrup says Fauci defended his previous Senate testimony in which he denied the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funded gain-of-function (GoF) research in Wuhan, China.
In fact, Wenstup said Fauci played semantics with the definition of GoF to avoid admitting his agency funded the research.
US journalist Emily Kopp was quick to post on X, that the NIAID had quietly changed the definition of GoF on its website.
“NIAID scrubbed the definition of gain-of-function research overnight,” Kopp wrote.
“The change was made when grant reports made it unambiguous that Fauci funded research to make coronaviruses more dangerous in Wuhan, including research that increased the viral load by 10,000 times,” added Kopp.
Notably, Richard H Ebright, Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University, pointed out that NIAID had never published the correct definition on its website.
Ebright called out the deception, saying Fauci was “knowingly, wilfully, and brazenly untruthful.”
He published the correct, authoritative definition of GoF research and wrote that Fauci had “repeatedly and flagrantly violated” US-government policies at the time by funding the dangerous research.
Fauci has often displayed a tenuous relationship with the truth – regularly flip flopping on health policies – prompting Senator Rand Paul to accuse Fauci of blatant duplicity.
This week, Senator Paul told Fox News, “The one thing that is consistent about Anthony Fauci is that what he says in private is largely true – what he says in public, is largely a lie.”
During the hearing, Fauci also admitted there was no scientific basis for socially distancing “6 feet apart” and reportedly said the rule “just sort of appeared.”
It was this very policy that kept US children from attending school, in some cases, for over a year.
To add insult to injury, Fauci told lawmakers he “was not convinced” that closing schools resulted in learning deficits for children.
Why would he bother telling the truth? Who’s going to prosecute him?
Apparently fauci and birq used some repudiated “model,” to convince Preident Trump to close down the economy.
They both literally were pulling policies (to reverse Trump’s economic success) out of thin air.
The “15 days to flatten the curve,” was a made-up lie.
The six feet “social distancing,” was a made-up lie, too.
They both knew that “masks don’t work.”
They both knew that isolating the healthy was stupid.
They both demonized Ivermectin, hydroxycloriquine, even normal procedures for treatment like fluids and bed rest.
They benefitted from their own created immunity-from prosecution for bad effects from all this, too.
Fauci’s “fess up” ought to be followed by a nice jail cell with a big cellmate.
They were the “experts” and Trump followed “expert, scientific advice”. While he wanted to open the nation back up in April, the “experts” opposed that. Eventually, numerous Republicans opened up, were called “neanderthals” and, in the end, were proven right while all the Democrats cared about was playing dictator and stealing out of the COVID aid.
Fauci means “lying, scum sucking, lowlife pedophile, gender studies major pending to be a pharmacist.” There is a saying that goes “he who believes a Fauci will buy a timeshare condo in Lagos.”
The man has the charm of Big Mike; the manliness of Pelosi; the intelligence of Schiff; the honesty of Obama; and the knowledge of Biden.
They made a m0vie about Dr. Fauci and it Bombed they wrote Kids book about him and it wasn’t a best seller
Sure thing, kitt.
I am not Jane, you must be coming down with something I found the perfect soup for you to slurp.
