Fauci's E-mails

President Biden said he is “very confident” in Dr. Anthony Fauci amid Republican attacks on his chief medical adviser after the revelation of thousands of his emails from the early days of the coronavirus pandemic.

The president was updating reporters as he departed Rehoboth Beach, Del., and when he walked out of the room, one shouted to ask if he is “still” confident in Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Moments later, Biden popped his head back in the room and said, “Yes, I am very confident in Dr. Fauci.”

Fauci’s emails, which are heavily redacted, have prompted Republicans to demand answers from the NIAID director about why he did not more aggressively pursue the theory that coronavirus could have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China.


I find it of interest that Jen Psaki says: “We’ll let him (Fauci) speak for himself,” with no indication that we’re ever going to hear from him (at least not that I’ve heard). More at:

Fauci’s financial grants this to support “enhanced transmission” of these deadly viruses is very disturbing. It’s amazing how the left goes out of its way to defend Communist China, and Fauci is right there with them. Fauci should resign, but the Democrats will continue to protect him, perhaps to their political detriment.

Considering Trump got rid of the CDC expert embedded in Wuhan that Obama appointed, I’m not sure what else Fauci could have done.

Other than come to the same independently derived conclusion every other international medical organisation did that the virus is most likely zoonotic in origin.

In fact, the only new “evidence” I can find for the resurgence of this conspiracy theory was an article written at the WSJ, where it implies Wuhan lab staff being diagnosed with Covid as new, but has been known for months and already been explored ad infinitum. The alleged “fact sheet” doesn’t even disclose the names of the people supposedly infected and that it comes from an embassy dispatch and not a recognized medical organization raises one hell of a question mark.

It’s also worth pointing out that the author of the WSJ article, Michael Gordon, is known for writing such zingers as Saddam has nukes or Iran is arming Sunnis, so not exactly Mr Reliable.,

And now Fauci is screaming that attacking him is attacking science. Conceit at best, gross propaganda at worst.

2 Likes

Fauci is drunk on his own perceived self-importance.

1 Like

He’s not wrong. The attacks and death threats towards Fauci did stem from a deep seated hatred of science and reality. This whole, “China grew the virus from a lab” crap is another perfect example.
Just look at Marjorie Taylor Greene’s ultimatum to the Biden Administration to investigate the origin of Covid before a really generous deadline…

Democrats think that science is just another propaganda topic they can control by lying about it. Part of that lie is to claim that their political opponents “hate science”.

2 Likes

That every other country in the world independently came to the same conclusion as Fauci and also handled the pandemic significantly better than the Trump Administration (with the possible exception of Brazil). shows that yes, attacks on Fauci are attacks on science. What democrats did or didn’t do is completely irrelevant. But take your daily dose of hydroxychloroquine and rest easy in the knowledge that you are only five times more likely to be exposed to coronavirus in the US than the rest of the world.

Are you sober? What other country had a vaccine developed and being delivered before the Trump Administration? Now we learn that China even started working on the vaccine before the virus was released, but American companies beat them to the punch.

But no vaccine should have been necessary. In hind sight, if President Trump had pushed back harder against that treasonous little weasel Fauci, maybe he could have twisted arms hard enough to get hydroxychloroquine approved (and later Ivermectin, even better). If he had done that (maybe put filthy Fauci in jail), the total deaths would have been a tiny fraction of what they were.

Though it would have been a risk. We know a lot more now than he knew then. He did the best that anyone could have possibly done with the vaccines. And his early travel restrictions no doubt saved a lot of lives.

Democrats are tied in with Fauci, the FDA’s bad decisions and even the WHO’s abysmal performance. (Recall that filthy Fauci wrote gain-of-function research was worth the risk of a pandemic.) President Trump fought a decidedly uphill battle against them all. It’s amazing he performed as well as he did. Yet the media lied the whole way along about what he did and denied him any credit for his accomplishments

I have Ivermectin for horses just in case since my doctor’s is too terrified of the evil doers to prescribe me the good stuff. But I’m very unlikely to need it because I had actual covid way back at the start in late January 2020. Plus I take vitamin D.

Every politician (including Republicans) that’s yammered about masks and vaccines but hasn’t encouraged taking vitamin D and Ivermectin has blood on his hands.

1 Like

Heads up, results from randomized clinical trials with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have been rolling in and are mixed at best. I think the confusion comes from promising early studies that were done in vitro. The problem is that while it can give us good leads on medications, tons of stuff works in vitro that won’t work in vivo.

In vitro you put the medication directly on the target with few physiological interruptions. When you move to in vivo there’s tons of issues about how effectively the body gets the medication to its target, how the body metabolizes and clears the drug, and interactions with other endogenous compounds throughout the body. A lot goes into optimizing a drug to effectively impact its target.

Hogwash. I don’t know about death threats, but to say that attacks on him are attacks on science is to anoint himself as the final arbiter of what is and isn’t science. Hubris at best. Further, he has flip-flopped his rear end off over a number of matters pertaining to COVID. Even to the point to where he conceded that the Wuhan lab leak is a possibility. They’ve experimented with any number of deadly viruses there.

And that “generous deadline” (Why should there be a deadline at all? They sure didn’t want one when trying to find Russian dirt on Trump (and yet Biden enables their pipeline and kills ours), and should think that a worldwide pandemic killing millions should warrant a LOT more scrutiny) came after he cancelled (and pooh-poohed) the original investigation started under Trump’s administration, because the optics didn’t let him bury it any longer.

I find it ironic that the left screams: “Science! Science! Science!” out of one end, but blows it out the other end when it’s pointed out that the chromosomes don’t lie about gender (as well as any number of other issues)…

Prove all of that.

And what Ken said about the Trump administration forwarding the development of the vaccines ahead of everyone else. Contrary to Harris’ lie that “Operation Warp Speed did nothing to get needles in arms.”

2 Likes

Rolling in? In fact it’s very hard to get anyone to spend the money to do a randomized controlled trial on either hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin because they’re both off patent so anybody can manufacture them and that means there’s no profit to be made. They won’t even be able to earn back the money the spent on the trial, so why do it? And they’re not. And no government agency is going to cross the pharmaceutical companies either. It’s much more profitable to push a vaccine that your insurance pays big bucks for (which will ultimately raise our insurance rates).

The problem with HCQ is two fold. One, it works best with zinc. For some reason, the observational study tend to ignore zinc.

Two, HCQ works best prophylactically and as an antiviral, meaning early in the disease, but can actually do harm in the late stages. But early on, many doctors were doing a Hail Mary when they realized their patient was dying, and threw everything at them including HCQ. The observational studies didn’t draw a distinction between early or late, so of course they didn’t show accurate results. But countries that use HCQ for malaria have low incidence of covid.

And as for Ivermectin, Dr. Kory raves about how good it is at all three phases. He tells of a trial in Brazil that wasn’t randomized, so it falls off the radar, but was a good study none-the-less. Hospital workers volunteered to either take Ivermectin or not. Of the hundreds of workers that were not taking it, something like 50% caught covid during the trial period. But of the 700 or so that were taking weekly Ivermectin, not one caught covid. Zero!

And that’s only one example. Ivermectin works dramatically well. But there’s no profit in it, so it’s downplayed.

Watch it quickly, @Gene, before the fascists take it down again.

That one got deleted again, but here’s the whole interview on Rumble (2.5 hours!):

The plain fact is the Democrats oppose and reverse everything Trump has done, whether it was right or not. That shows no academic rigor whatsoever. It only shows politics and pettiness. The little professors and their indoctrinated students try to pass themselves off as “intellectuals,” but their rigid ideology makes them into hacks.

HCQ was a prime example. Evidence showed that if it was administered early in the progression of the disease, with zinc, that it was an effective treatment. If it was given later, it caused harm. An intellectual would look into those distinctions and put politics aside, but not the Democrats and their little professor supporters. No, Trump said it; therefore it’s wrong; and anyone who doesn’t tow the party line is a heretic who must be condemned! Who cares if it could save lives? THE CAUSE is what’s important.

This is state of politics and academic rigor today. It’s the mind set of the leadership of the old Soviet Union.

1 Like

I watched it, but here’s the problem. I’m not sure what their angles are (money from ad revenue and speaking fees from publicity perhaps?) But the sources they cited are shaky at best. They only cite unreviewed pre-prints and those that are reviewed are in known predatory journals. They’re basically journals that call themselves “open source” and ask authors to give them money to cover publishing fees. It’s an unfortunate racket in science. On top of that, I found the paper with over 700 people taking ivermectin and 0 getting covid. The fact they report 0 is a HUGE red flag in science. Nothing is that much of a silver bullet.

Now, down to the science of why ivermectin isn’t likely to be effective. While it’s true it exhibits antiviral effects in vitro, this is a secondary off-target effect that requires concentrations of above 2 micromolar to occur meaningfully. The dose required to achieve these effects stably in human blood plasma levels is around 100 times the standard dose, and 10 times the highest dose measured for humans.

The other issue with trying to achieve off-target effects in this manner is you’ll elicit off target effects to systems other than the virus. Ivermectin is quite safe at standard doses, it’s an antiparasitic drug. At the same time it’s also safe for viruses at standard doses. Once you get to the levels where it starts impacting viruses, you’re also likely to start getting effects on humans. There is an established overdose toxicity profile that typically includes things like seizures, vomiting, and liver damage.

Doesn’t it make more sense to focus on dedicated antiviral medications? There’s clinical trials going on currently for a few in prophylactic settings.

I don’t think emails will take away his crown

Why aren’t there any Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT), the “gold standard” in medical science? I’ll tell you why, though it should be blatantly obvious after a little thought.

Ivermectin is off patent. That means any pharma company can manufacture it. That means there’s no money to be made. So no pharmaceutical company is willing to pay for an RCT. There’s no way they could earn back the cost of the trial. Worse, as long as there’s no RCT which demonstrates Ivermectin’s efficacy, government agencies can’t approve it for use with covid.

Why doesn’t any government agency do an RCT? Because they’re in bed with the pharmaceutical companies they’re supposed to be regulating.

As long as there’s no RCT, it can’t be approved. As long as it’s not approved, doctors aren’t supposed to use it for covid, even though the doctors and countries that do have shocking results. That study you mentioned is only one. There are a number of them with incredibly excellent results on the FLCCC.net site.

It exhibits incredible antiviral effects in the many many people who’s lives it has already saved. It has proven excellent for use in all three phases of covid: prophylactic, antiviral for early stage and anti-inflammatory for late stage.

It’s fantastically safe with side effects that are much more rare than with that of the vaccines.

Why? How could you hope for a better medication than Ivermectin? The only disadvantage is that it won’t make the pharmaceutical companies rich like the vaccines are. That was probably the whole point of Fauci paying for the development of that virus to begin with. (And Fauci confessed at some point that he takes 6000 IU of vitamin D daily, so he knew he was unlikely to get infected.)

These guys aren’t the only ones that have sung the praises of Ivermectin. I’ve seen various news or various doctors around the world that are stunned by it. But the fascists at YouTube deleted that video again. They’re in cahoots with big pharma, government agencies, Fauci and the rest of the filthy profit-driven swamp.

1 Like

Well, it’s at this point I advise you strongly to please not take 100 times the standard dose…

The FLCCC’s “I-MASK+” recommends three doses:

PREVENTION PROTOCOL         0.2 mg/kg per dose
EARLY OUTPATIENT PROTOCOL   0.2–0.4 mg/kg per dose
HOSPITAL TREATMENT PROTOCOL 0.4–0.6 mg/kg per dose 

What “standard dose” are you looking at?
One site I looked at recommended 200 mcg/kg for strongyloidiasis. That’s the same as the “prevention protocol” above.

That’s the standard high end dose yes. To achieve stable blood plasma concentrations similar to that which worked in vitro, you need to take closer to 20mg/kg. And that’s just theoretical as blood plasma levels that high have never been measured, and almost certainly don’t scale perfectly linearly with dose.