'Prosecute/Fauci' are Elon Musk's pronouns. What to put on the indictment sheet?

First, a quick quiz.

1)    Who said, “Dr. Fauci is a national hero who will be remembered for generations to come for his innate goodness and many contributions to public health”?

2)    Who said, “The NIH and NIAID did not fund gain-of-function research to be conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology”?

3)    Who said, “My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci”?

Answers:

1)    John Brennan, a former director of the CIA

2)    Dr. Anthony Fauci in sworn (false) testimony to Congress

3)    Elon Musk

On May 11, 2021, Dr. Anthony Fauci, then still head of the NIAID (the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), testified before Congress (with Senator Rand Paul grilling him) on a number of issues central to the COVID panic.

Sen. Paul: Dr. Fauci, do you still support NIH funding of the lab in Wuhan?

Dr. Fauci: Senator Paul, with all due respect you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

On November 12, 2022, Elon Musk posted on Twitter: “My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci.”

Musk claimed that Fauci had “lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people. Not awesome IMO.”

‍

In 2023, Dr. Fauci called Musk’s words “insanity,” adding,

Prosecute me for what? What are they talking about? I wish I could figure out what the heck they’re talking about. I think they’re just going off the deep end.

But on May 16, 2024, NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak testified before Congress that gain-of-function research was funded by the NIH at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Congresswoman Lesko: Dr. Tabak, did NIH fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?

Dr. Tabak: It depends on your definition of gain-of-function research. If you’re speaking about the generic term, yes we did ... It is not regulated because it poses no threat or harm to anybody.

Will Fauci now be prosecuted for lying to Congress? Fauci lied under oath, which is a federal crime. But was lying to Congress the greatest of his crimes? It may be the only crime that he will ever be brought to account for, but the list of the areas where his opinions and interventions impacted millions of lives is a very long one indeed. (For a comprehensive picture of the multiple ways in which Fauci and the entire leadership of the US health apparatus failed Americans, please see this analysis by Justin Hart here.)

Where did COVID come from?

Fauci has admitted that he participated in a conference call with other scientists to discuss the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 had leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan (where gain-of-function research on coronaviruses was being conducted, partially funded by the NIH). During that conference call, the participating scientists noted features of interest in the virus that suggested quite strongly that it was an artificial construct.

However, a research paper subsequently published by several of the participants in the conference call aimed to put to rest any question of a lab leak, and emails released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests indicate that Fauci sought to suppress the lab leak theory — which he denies to this day.

The fact remains that he apparently did not warn anyone in government of the possibility of a lab leak, nor did he voice any concerns about the future of gain-of-function research, which he supports to this day.

How serious was COVID?

COVID was, from the start, presented as a major threat to civilization. At no point did Fauci seek to qualify that image. He did not protest against the use of PCR testing which “discovered” the virus via dubious means, contributing to the panic that swiftly mounted among the general public.

Furthermore, when a WHO scientist suggested that people carrying the virus, but with no symptoms, only very rarely transmitted it, Fauci publicly objected, claiming that asymptomatic people were far more likely to be contagious than some believed. Yet, he did not initiate a single study to test this claim, even though evidence from China suggested that it was false.

Throughout the COVID era, Fauci continued to urge the utmost use of masks, social distancing, lockdowns and experimental vaccines, for everyone, young or old, sick or healthy, regardless of mounting evidence that it positive PCR tests only correlated with a serious health threat in those who were already frail. He was part of the health bureaucracy that lumped deaths “from COVID” and “with COVID” together in official records, that failed to stratify fatalities by age, and that failed to reassure the public that although the latest viral strand from the coronavirus family (COVID) was technically new, around 50 percent of people had some natural immunity to it (a fact which emerged very early on during the “pandemic”).

How should people protect themselves from infection?

Given that people below the age of 70 in relatively good health were at minimal risk from respiratory infections such as COVID, many believed that the official advice should have been to continue with one’s daily life, stay active, and eat nutritious food. Not only did Fauci and others in positions of great influence not give such advice, they actively prevented the general public from preserving and enhancing their innate immunity with their promotion of lockdowns.

Aside from that, they instilled maximum fear of infection despite scant or absent evidence. COVID was portrayed as an extraordinarily contagious virus that could be caught by touching a surface that an infected person had previously touched. Fauci promoted the “6-foot rule” of keeping one’s distance from others (which he later blamed on the CDC when it was discredited). People were given the impression that even moderate proximity to other people outdoors was dangerous, for which no good evidence at all existed (although some “scientists” attempted to explain how a runner was likely to spread infected droplets to those even at a distance from him due to the rush of air he created).

Fauci supported the closure of schools even though children were never at serious risk of COVID, which became obvious very early on. He supported closures throughout most of 2020, even as the negative impact of lockdowns on children also became obvious, and only tentatively conceded that perhaps a year-long series of closures had been a bad idea earlier this year — while insisting that “at the time” the closures had been a wise policy.

Finally, his policy on masks was erratic despite his insistence that it was based on “science” (although he never provided the evidence — claiming that it was “impossible” to conduct a study on mask efficacy as people were dying). At first, he said they were unnecessary; then, he promoted them — any kind, ranging from useless cloth to quasi-useless N95s — then he even promoted two masks as better than one. He never acknowledged the downsides of wearing masks even as studies emerged showing that a) masks did not protect against COVID and b) that wearing a mask caused all kinds of health issues from facial rashes to learning difficulties in children and more.

Ridiculing effective treatments

Fauci was part of the health apparatus that ridiculed treatments shown by frontline doctors to be effective, and sought to have them suppressed. He was also part of the apparatus that promoted drugs such as remdesivir and Paxlovid for treatment of COVID. An abundance of medical literature dating back to before the COVID era showed that remdesivir had very serious adverse effects (including death) but Fauci never voiced caution regarding its use. With regard to Paxlovid, the evidence that it was effective ranged from weak to non-existent, which Fauci himself inadvertently proved when he himself caught COVID (after two COVID shots) and, according to his words, took a course of Paxlovid, and then had “COVID rebound” and took another course of Paxlovid.

Meanwhile, drugs such as hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and even vitamin C were portrayed as either dangerous, ineffective, or both, even as ICU doctors such as Drs. Paul Marik and Pierre Kory were using combinations of cheap repurposed drugs succesfully (and lost their reputations and hospital licenses as a result).

Presenting gene-altering drugs as vaccines

When the COVID mRNA shots were released, Dr. Fauci dismissed concerns that they were “gene therapy,” stating that,

There is really no biological reason at all to indicate or even predict that you would even see any modification of a genetic profile when you’re dealing with mRNA, which has no way of integrating into the genome of a cell.

Possibly Fauci was unaware at the time that there was indeed a biological reason to suppose that the shots would modify genes; however, when it later became clear that elements of the shots could and did enter the cell nucleus of recipients, Fauci did not revise his opinion.

Fauci promoted the shots as the saviors of civilization as we know it (though not in so many words) even as the clinical trial results (certainly available to him in unredacted form) clearly showed only very modest actual efficacy at best (despite the “95% efficacy” the media parroted) and even as the gravity of the side effect profile emerged.

He was part of the medical bureaucracy that supported not only two shots for virtually every man, woman, and child (even those who had already recovered from COVID, and had natural immunity — which he downplayed). And he continues to support regular boosters for virtually everyone, even after milder variants such as Omicron emerged.

He was not, and is not, part of any push for a closer analysis of VAERS reports, and he has never advocated for a study to be made of the shots’ side effects with a view to having them withdrawn if serious findings are made.

Suppressing any contrary position: ‘I am The Science’

From the early days of the “pandemic,” Fauci presented his views as the established scientific view, famously stating,

Attacks on me are attacks on science.

To this day he maintains that the decisions he took were correct at the time he made them, and that those who opposed his stances (such as the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration) were “totally wrong” and deserved to have their views ridiculed and suppressed.

‍

Did Fauci get anything right?

This question was answered by Justin Hart in his Rational Ground substack. His assessment is grim:

• Origin of the disease—wrong
• Transmission—wrong
• Asymptomatic spread—wrong
• PCR testing—wrong
• Fatality rate—wrong
• Lockdowns—wrong
• Community triggers—wrong
• Business closures—wrong
• School closures—wrong
• Quarantining the healthy—wrong
• Impact on youth—wrong
• Hospital overload—wrong
• Plexiglass barriers—wrong
• Social distancing—wrong
• Outdoor spread—wrong
• Masks—wrong
• Variant impact—wrong
• Natural immunity—wrong
• Vaccine efficacy—wrong
• Vaccine injury—wrong

‍

The only remaining questions are:

- Will Fauci ever be brought to account for the damaged lives left in the wake of his decades in public health “service”?

- What can we do to ensure this never happens again?

‍

The information contained in this article is for educational and information purposes only and is not intended as health, medical, financial or legal advice. Always consult a physician, lawyer or other qualified professional regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition, health objectives or legal or financial issues.