Wednesday’s news gave new meaning to the term, “Fauci Ouchie!” The Washington Post and Buzzfeed obtained via the Freedom of Information Act thousands of emails from Dr. Anthony Fauci about the COVID-19 coronavirus, and they shattered the godlike aura the media have built up around Fauci like a hammer going through a plate glass window.
There’s so much in the more than 3,000 emails that I can’t detail it all here, but here are a few major stunners:
* Credible scientists told Fauci early on that the virus appeared bio-engineered and likely came from a lab, and he took actions to squelch that story. Many suspect it would have been embarrassing or far worse for him if the public knew of his role in promoting “gain of function” research to make viruses more transmittable to humans, something he allegedly lied about under oath…
* He knew that masks weren’t needed if you weren’t sick, and the masks people were buying were ineffective because the virus is so small it passes right through them. Some studies even showed that masks could make transmission worse. Yet Fauci kept pushing them, even to the point of suggesting wearing two at once (here’s some more on that)…
* Physicist Erik Nielsen sent him recommendations of two drugs that could help, one being Hydroxychloroquine. Yet when Trump said that and was attacked by the media as if he just made it up, Fauci did nothing to defend him…
* Fauci was in regular contact with billionaires Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, the latter about setting up a Facebook “information hub” to squelch “disinformation.” We now know that includes things like the possible Chinese lab origins of the virus that were not disinformation but that were simply inconvenient to the officially approved narrative.
Stephen Green at PJ Media quotes a commentator who points out that Zuckerberg was emailing Fauci about messaging ideas while giving $400 million to an organization that got out the vote in key Democrat battleground districts and deplatforming people who complained about it. Green writes, “You don’t have to be paranoid to see an information-controlling/data-hoovering social media giant working in cahoots with the public health bureaucracy to both shape a narrative and to unseat a sitting president.”
For a more detailed overview, the Legal Insurrection blog did a good job of laying out excerpts from the most important emails, explaining what’s in them, and providing samples of reactions.
Townhall.com columnist and attorney Marina Medvin tweeted, “Fauci has singlehandedly transformed medical science into political science. This level of medical deceit to effectuate political control is unprecedented in American history.”
And Ben Shapiro called Fauci the "(Chief Justice) John Roberts of public health: a guy trying to protect an institution without regard to the purpose of the institution itself.”
Tucker Carlson at Fox News tore into this story as vindication of his long time criticism of Dr. Fauci.
Sen. Rand Paul, who endured death threats from the Fauci cult for questioning his claims and accusing him of perjury, tweeted the most succinct reply to the torrent of email revelations:
I’m sure it pained WaPo and Buzzfeed to have to report this, because it means the people they denigrated, dismissed and censored for being purveyors of disinformation and debunked conspiracy theories are now looking correct on practically all counts. WaPo is trying to finesse its crawlback by not admitting that they’d been wrong in condemning skeptics of China’s government as crackpots and bigots (as one commentator pointed out, why is it anti-Chinese bigotry to suspect the communist government made the virus in a lab, but not anti-Chinese bigotry to assume it came from Chinese people eating bats?)
In correcting their 2020 story on Sen. Tom Cotton’s questioning of the origins of the virus, WaPo adds this disclaimer: “The term ‘debunked’ and the Post’s use of ‘conspiracy theory’ have been removed because, then as now, there was no determination about the origins of the virus.”
Nice attempt at distancing yourself from your own mistake. But if, by their own admission, they knew “then” that there was “no determination about the origins of the virus,” why did they call Cotton’s questioning of it a “conspiracy theory” that had been “debunked?” They work at a newspaper; you’d think they’d understand that words mean things. I suspect it’s because liberals have gotten so into the habit of declaring things “debunked” without going to the effort of actually debunking them that they never imagined the truth would catch up to them and they’d have to take one back. Well, in this case it has.
I wonder how many other cases we’ll eventually see of people who were branded by the media as “lying liars who lie” turning out to have been telling the truth all along?