Anthony Fauci MD and Deborah Birx MD have two very important attributes in common. First with those initials after their names, they get to be called “Doctor.” Second, because they are long term government employees, their salaries are unaffected by what they do or say. They can’t lose those titles and their income can’t be taken away. So what do they have to gain in the Wuhan Flu saga?
Let’s consider “doctor.” We usually transpose MD into “physician” when we see it. Physicians are honorable people who follow the Hippocratic Oath in promoting the health of our fellows. Neither Fauci nor Birx are physicians anymore. Anthony Fauci was involved with clinical medicine for a grand total of two years after medical school before devoting his life completely to research. Deborah Birx spent a bit longer, but within three years became a research fellow in Fauci’s lab. In short, neither one of these two “experts” has any material experience to become expert in clinical medicine.
Let’s repeat this fact. The two “experts” who have had the President’s ear have virtually no experience in the day to day management of patients with various medical conditions. This means that every recommendation they would make comes from the intellectually sterile universe of virology research, not from daily contact with real people who have real problems. But even that cannot excuse their public ignorance of key features of SARS CoV-2. That knowledge should have led them to give the President completely different advice.
Anthony Fauci is well known to have connections with the Chinese Level IV infectious disease laboratory in Wuhan. So it is almost certain the he had early information about the virus being wild in the population. But he repeated the WHO lie that person to person transmission did not happen. This gives us our first hint that the basketball player was not acting completely in the interest of the truth. Things go straight downhill from there.
First we must consider the Imperial College model that predicted 2.4 million deaths if nothing was done. This model scared the bejeesus out of everyone, and led to a lockdown of flights from China on January 31. That was just the first domino to fall. But it should not have fallen.
Dr Fauci almost certainly knew that the computer model was hopelessly corrupted. It was old code, patched again and again, and was so bad that when you put exactly identical inputs in a second time, you got radically different results. This wasn’t “garbage in, garbage out.” It was “anything in, garbage out.” And this was common knowledge in the modeling community. Further, the insurance industry has long had standards for how to deal with models. You have to have multiple models from different sources with tight correspondence between them before you use them for decision-making. With the IHME worst case at one tenth of the IC model, neither should have been used.
If you’ve been following my comments from the beginning, you’ll recall that I’ve been highly critical of the whole lockdown idea. My major premise has been that quarantines are only useful in restricting spread from people who are already sick. But F&B knew that, didn’t they? Quarantining healthy people had never been tried, and there was no reason to expect that it would do anything helpful. There are so many more healthy people than sick people, and there are so many of them required simply to keep the rest alive that you cannot effectively quarantine the population. Yet this is what F&B sold to Trump. But they knew better on other grounds.
Very early on it became widely known that Wuhan Flu was a respiratory infection, like its coronavirus sisters SARS, MERS, and the common cold. That’s right, the common cold is usually due to a coronavirus. We know how these are transmitted. When you cough or sneeze, you send droplets into the air around you. If you are infected, those droplets carry viruses. If you don’t cough or sneeze, every time you breathe, you send out aerosols which will also carry viruses. In other words, if you are infected, you are spreading virus. If you are infected and sick, you do it a lot more than if you have a stealth infection.
Let’s paint a simple picture. If you walk outside on a frigid day, your breath will look like this.
That cloud is a water vapor aerosol, and includes viruses and bacteria you have in your mouth and lungs. Next, consider walking by a sidewalk café where someone is smoking. You smell the smoke, even if they aren’t blowing it at you. It doesn’t take much to detect it. And if that smoke was an infected aerosol, you might get enough virus to wake up your immune system. This happens all the time. Small exposures keep you healthy by keeping your immunity up. And they are probably responsible for most of the silent carriers. But F&B know this.
Now let’s multiply the aerosols. Let’s go into the back room of that Roaring ’20s speakeasy.
The air is saturated with smoke. If you have asthma, you’ll need to leave. And if you are in a high risk group for Wuhan Flu, being closed in with silent carriers will kill you. But F&B know this. Yet they told us to stay inside. Of course, Italy, if we had listened, would have changed the narrative. But that wouldn’t do. F&B are the experts, and experts can never be wrong.
In Italy, large numbers of elderly people died of Wuhan Flu. While the press focused on their high risk medical conditions, it ignored a key point. The elderly victims in Lombardy tended to live in close proximity to one another. Once one person brought the virus in, it was like second hand smoke.
F&B knew this, but said nothing. Instead, they persisted in pushing the lockdown. They knew that the lockdown would kill more people, but the public message was, “We have to flatten the curve.” Supposedly this draconian measure would reduce the spread of disease in the vulnerable population and reduce the load on intensive care units. And there’s another thing that F&B knew but didn’t say.
The virus was “in the wild.” This term means that it has already escaped containment. The virus was identified in the US and South Korea on the same day. This should have been no surprise, since China allowed five million people to leave Wuhan, each potentially carrying Wuhan Flu, before they locked the city down. What we missed was that in South Korea, an aggressive testing program revealed that there were large numbers of asymptomatic carriers. But F&B knew this. As later data from Stanford, USC, and New York City have confirmed, the bug is everywhere.
Wuhan Flu blossomed in almost every country around the world. This alone should have made it clear that nothing could stop it. That horse had left the barn. But F&B knew this and insisted on a lockdown anyway.
What did the lockdown do? It kept people away from parks, lakes, beaches and golf courses. These are the safest places to be, since UV light from the sun rapidly kills viruses and bacteria. It crammed vulnerable elders into buildings with restricted sunlight and ventilation. Because those people had to have food, supposedly uninfected people would bring it in. But because it is impossible to identify all stealth carriers, some of them will bring the virus with them. They may also be bringing it from “essential jobs” (all jobs are truly essential!) where supposedly cloth masks prevented its spread. But F&B knew that wouldn’t be true, since fabric masks are largely ineffective, and public use of masks only helps sick people (super spreaders) reduce spreading the bulk of their bugs. And at workplaces, we have the smoke-filled room situation. Sitting six feet apart does nothing when the air isn’t exchanged often enough.
So the bug gets into the building with all those cooped up people and spreads like second-hand smoke. But F&B knew that. And now we know, because New York Governor Cuomo announced that 66% of all COVID-19 deaths came from locked-down “non-essential” people. In short, the lockdown killed people. But F&B knew that would happen.
Why would F&B push “flattening the curve” and claim success when nothing of the sort was possible or actually happened? Comparison of Norway and Sweden, as Dr Erickson (a real physician) from Bakersfield described, shows nearly identical situations for COVID-19 even though Sweden stayed open for business and Norway closed. Korea, Taiwan, and other areas further prove that lockdowns are not helpful. But F&B knew that as well.
What did F&B have to gain? Here I find myself speculating, since I don’t have inside knowledge, but several items have my attention. The first is the Law of the Bureaucrat. F&B aren’t physicians, they’re bureaucrats. They’ve been elevated to administrative levels in the National Institutes of Health. But at the NIH they’re invisible to the public. They labored away in a remote corner of the public universe where they would never be seen. But COVID-19 changed all that.
COVID-19 was an obvious problem. We didn’t know a lot about the virus, so the President looked to the Institute of Virology for help. Sounds logical. But the motivations for bureaucrats aren’t the same as for the maven of MAGA. Trump wants to solve a problem. Bureaucrats want a problem to solve. But they can’t ever solve the problem, because that would mean that they aren’t needed anymore. Of course, the lure of fifteen minutes of fame is huge as well.
So we have to ask, “Were the proposed ‘solutions’ designed to solve or perpetuate the problem?” Discussions about continuing the lockdown in some form until a vaccine is available (none is for the common cold, MERS, SARS, Ebola, or HIV) suggest that F&B want to be relevant for an extended period.
Next, Fauci wrote in 2005 that “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread…We report…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.” In short, CQ and HCQ are extremely effective antivirals in coronavirus cases. But now he is poo-poo-ing CQ and HCQ in favor of remdesivir. CQ and HCQ are very old drugs, and in the HCQ/Z-pack/Zinc combo cost about $20 for a full course of treatment. Fauci was involved in the development of remdesivir for Ebola (it didn’t work), and so is personally invested in its success.
Are the benefits of a completely wrong and failed approach related to personal fame or possible financial benefit? Are Fauci’s known left-wing political leanings relevant? Someone with more investigative resources than I would need to do the work, but at this point I have to ask. In the meantime, it’s time for us to completely eliminate the lockdown. Three phases to normalcy is garbage. Every part of the CDC prescription has been shown to be wrong-headed and counter-productive. And I haven’t begun to discuss the mortality rate from joblessness.
The basketball player and scarf queen have had their fifteen minutes of fame. Their prescriptions have killed many Americans, quite possibly more that their claims of lives saved. They have caused massive amounts of distress, and placed millions at risk for massive personal loss. For what gain?
Check out the NEW NOQ Report Podcast.