Image 01 Image 03

‘Experts’ Are Now Beginning to Express Regrets over Fauci’s Dreadful Handling of Covid

‘Experts’ Are Now Beginning to Express Regrets over Fauci’s Dreadful Handling of Covid

A scientist regrets supporting Fauci’s cover-up related to potential lab-leak

The last time we reported on Dr. Anthony Fauci, The New York Times columnist David Wallace-Wells had interviewed the former White House coronavirus advisor. The subsequent puff-piece prepared from that discussion offered incoherent ramblings that mixed blame deflection, gaslighting, and cognitive dissonance.

The effort to rehabilitate Fauci’s reputation is failing spectacularly, especially in light of recent revelations essentially confirming the lab-leak origins of the covid pandemic. Now “experts” are beginning to distance themselves from the than man who was once the most highly paid employee in federal government.

Former Centers for Disease Control & Prevention Director Robert Redfield is ‘very disappointed’ in Fauci’s lack of interest in pursuing the real origins of the pandemic in order to protect gain-of-function research.

“Tony and I have been friends for a long time, but I’m very disappointed in how he’s responded to this,” Redfield said. “Largely, I think it’s grounded in his advocacy for gain-of-function research.”

“I think, as you know, he’s a strong advocate for gain-of-function research, and I’m a strong advocate for a moratorium on gain-of-function research.”

Legal Insurrection readers may recall that Fauci both commissioned and had final approval on a scientific paper written in February 2020 designed to disprove the theory that the virus leaked from a Wuhan lab.

One of the authors of a scientific paper credited with smearing the covid lab leak hypothesis as a fringe conspiracy theory has today admitted they went ‘too far.’

Professor Robert Garry, a respected microbiologist who works at Tulane University in New Orleans, is one of five bylined on a paper in March 2020 entitled ‘The Proximal Origin of Sars-Cov-2’.

…The letter, published in the journal Nature Medicine, concluded: ‘We do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.’

Now, Dr Garry has told the BBC this statement was never meant to dismiss all types of potential lab leak.

Speaking to Fever: The Hunt for Covid’s Origin, an eight-part BBC Radio 4 series, he said they were aiming to dismiss the idea the virus had been intentionally crafted as a bioweapon.

‘At that point we were still largely under the influence, when that particular sentence was written, with the notion that this may have been a bioengineered virus or maybe a weapon that just sort of accidentally released,’ he said.

But pressed by John Sudworth, the BBC’s former Beijing Correspondent, on how the paper’s principal conclusion covered all types of lab leaks, such as a from a disease research facility, Professor Garry admitted the wording was wrong.

‘Maybe we went a little too far there,’ he said.

His comments mark a shift in his opinion.

There may be many more scientists who will come to regret Fauci’s choices in research funding and in handling of the covid pandemic. Legal Insurrection readers will recall that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded the EcoHealth Alliance bat virus research in Wuhan, which led to the sequence of events that resulted in the SARS-Cov-2 virus that causes covid. The Biden administration is continuing to send the group money for the same type of studies.

Many researchers are now upset over a new policy released by the NIH as a result of the covid experiences. Supposedly, the new rules will enhance oversight of its ‘subawards,’ which are monies given from a primary grant recipients to collaborators. Foreign investigators will have to jump through new bureaucratic hoops (i.e., submitting documentation, data, and lab notebooks to the primary grant receiver more frequently) to get their money.

Researchers have condemned the policy’s focus on foreign subrecipients. Stefano Bertuzzi, chief executive of the American Society for Microbiology in Washington DC, says he supports extra accountability and oversight for subawards, but he is “puzzled by why only foreign entities are singled out”.

A virologist from Brazil, who requested anonymity out of fear that their chances of receiving funding could be harmed, says the policy adds a layer of bureaucracy, crafted with politics — not science — in mind.

…David Relman, a microbiologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine in California, says it addresses concerns that “US expectations and standards for research reproducibility and transparency may not be shared elsewhere in the world”. But he has concerns that it might discourage international collaborations and worries that it’s unclear which elements of lab notebooks would need to be shared. He calls on the NIH to clarify this provision and to clearly communicate to the research community the motivations and goals of the policy.

The ambiguity could mean that the policy will face legal challenges in some countries, says the Brazilian virologist. Many researchers work on several overlapping research projects from various funders, and some countries carefully safeguard data — for instance, biodiversity data in Brazil — that will be difficult to keep separate.

The new NIH rules will do nothing meaningful to prevent another EcoHealth Alliance scenario occur again. Peter Daszak, the head of the American non-profit, failed to disclose the true lethality data associated with mouse studies conducted. The definition of “gain of function” research has been massaged to the point it only means something if a bureaucrat doling out funds wants it to mean something.

All the new rules will do his hinder real science and permit the well-connected and approved researchers to carry on as before . . . more beholden to the bureaucratic state than ever.

However, it is interesting to see the scientific community beginning to distance itself from Fauci and reap some of the consequences of his antics. I have a theory more distancing and more consequences are in the near future.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


All it took was one federal document highlighting the obscene amount of money sent to The Big Guy.

Follow the money, and see how much these ‘experts’ had been paid during Fauci’s reign of terror.

None of these medical “experts” have clean hands. They are culpable for perpetuating the lie as well. The question is what to do about them?

    irishgladiator63 in reply to natdj. | June 19, 2023 at 12:27 pm

    Well, when you dared question them, they wanted you fired, jailed, stripped of health insurance, refused treatment at hospitals, and your children taken from you. Sounds like a place to start.

All the warnings about pandemics by the people that brought you pandemics.

Sounds about right this day and age.

Fauci and the rest are revealed as corrupt, deceptive actors seeking wealth and fame, who not only hid their roles, but used the authoritarian tactics to silence and punish the truth. Abusing their halos as they have is wicked, shameful behavior well deserving of scorn heaped upon them.

Now we can see how a nation can willingly allow a [Mengele] Fauci to rule unopposed creating killings fields to the left and to the right of him.

#FJB <-- Disco Stu_ | June 18, 2023 at 4:41 pm

“No, no, you’ll never, EVER, find a large-$ cancelled check payable to the Wuhan Institute of Virology with my signature on it! … Liar!”

It is worth noticing that the “experts” repeated obvious falsehoods about every aspect of covid-19. Everybody from researchers to doctors to professors.

RedWrangler | June 18, 2023 at 6:00 pm

I had the privilege to attend a talk with Jay Bhattacharya late this winter at Cornell. It can’t be understated how pivotal his and his colleagues work has been to unequivocally demonstrating that the lockdowns had little to no benefits to health but massive unintended consequences.

Whenever the narrative that lockdowns were necessary comes out, we need to be there with the undeniable truth that it caused massive health and economic harm and did not stop the spread of COVID. Increasingly, ours is the winning argument!

    CommoChief in reply to RedWrangler. | June 18, 2023 at 6:22 pm

    I recall early in 2020 searching out for other viewpoints instead of the overreaction by govt and stumbled across a video of Dr Bhattacharya explaining exactly how the govt was abandoning the prior mainstream consensus as well the actual on the books plans for responding to something like Covid.

Seppuku would be an honorable way for some of these evil bastards to say that they’re sorry.

Suburban Farm Guy | June 18, 2023 at 7:28 pm

Funny how these expert experts are so expert with their expert hindsight that they can expertly see now what their expert expertise should have expertly seen 3 years ago. Fire every one of their bought-and-paid-for expert a$$es already.

Ah, for the good old days when experts were actually useful. Sad

I wonder if any of these people involved in the deaths of a million Americans are at risk of lawsuits?

In a just world, Fauci the sociopath would be rotting in prison awaiting execution for his crimes against humanity* per the Nuremberg Codes.

*after a fair trial, of course

nordic prince | June 18, 2023 at 8:29 pm

It took a while, but it comes as no surprise that more and more “experts” are beginning to throw the sainted Tony Fraudchi under the bus.

The real question is: Will we “just say (HELL) NO” the next time they try to pull this crap? Bill Gates of Hell promised us there’d be a “next pandemic,” and that it would get our attention. We must resist – resist we much.

healthguyfsu | June 18, 2023 at 9:04 pm

I don’t think Redfield has ever been a fan of Fauci. I could be wrong about that, but that was my understanding way back when all of this started.

As early as March 2020 it was pretty obvious that a lab leak had very high probability and by far the most likely source.

Yet NPR ran 1 full week expose with tons of experts explaining why a lab leak was near impossible. Honest reporting – not

But but but… it’s all Trumps fault !!!

    CommoChief in reply to gonzotx. | June 18, 2023 at 10:53 pm

    Don’t be so hard on Trump. ‘All’ seems a little too much burden to assign to Trump. He is only responsible for using his power to do some things while failing to use his power to do other things.

      (think gonzotx was being sarcastic)

      That being said, imagine just exactly what kind of screaming fit the media and the Dems (but I repeat myself) would have thrown if Trump had decided not to follow Fauci’s ‘advice’ or even had fired him and replaced him with an honest virologist. Another impeachment would have followed, for certain.

        CommoChief in reply to georgfelis. | June 19, 2023 at 11:15 am

        Maybe but maybe not, the purpose of appending /S is to clearly indicate sarcasm in written form b/c we can hear the tone of delivery. I am done with employing decoder rings or whisperers to try and decipher anyone. Words have plain meaning which are commonly understood. Part of effective communication is using the common framework of our language.

        I don’t disagree that a shit storm would have kicked off if DJT fired or publicly sidelined Fauci. Tough cookies, he wanted to be POTUS and making hard decisions comes with it.

        This argument about the media and d/prog getting angry if DJT does X instead of Y re Covid is similar to the excuses as to why he didn’t veto every budget sent up that lacked funds for the border wall. The media and d/prog would undoubtedly have been PO, probably some rino as well, they would have said mean things and maybe taken another shot at impeachment. Again tough cookies, it’s part of the territory of being a disruptor of DC v just talking about being a disruptor.

1. “ Professor Robert Garry, a respected microbiologist who works at Tulane University in New Orleans, is one of five bylined on a paper”. Seems to me anyone associated with that paper should no longer be “respected”, and instead should be charged with criminal conspiracy and crimes against humanity.

2. Why are we (taxpayers) funding this sort of research in other countries at all?

3. Continuing to fund Ecohealth Alliance is unconscionable. Is this another deal arranged by Hunter? It should be defunded, discredited, disbanded and its principals tried, then shot by firing squad.

Would these be the same “experts” who condemned those who early on said this was all wrong, such as the writers of The Great Barrington Declaration and Dr.. McCullough, and that Dr. Science was a fraud and a liar? Those “experts?” This seems to be a Medical Mea Culpa.

Supposedly Anthony Fauci is no longer an employee of the federal government, but he has been seen in recent days with two bodyguards.
Who is paying for them ?

I find it interesting that whistleblower Li-Meng Yan who appeared on Tucker Carlson in 2020 after writing a very credible paper on the lab origins of COVID is being memory-holed.

I’m wondering how Democrats will avoid Voter ID if those WHO health passports with photo ID become required

Ann in L.A. | June 19, 2023 at 9:41 am

How committed was Fauci to gain of function?

This is from an article Fauci wrote in the American Society for Microbiology’s mBio journal, in 2012 ( doi.ORG/10.1128/mBio.00359-12 )

“The influenza virus research community is to be commended for implementing a voluntary moratorium on “gain-of-function” experiments related to the transmissibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus.

“[…] In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?

“[…] Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

Lucifer Morningstar | June 19, 2023 at 9:56 am

Foreign investigators will have to jump through new bureaucratic hoops (i.e., submitting documentation, data, and lab notebooks to the primary grant receiver more frequently) to get their money.

Not good enough. Foreign investigators should be prohibited from receiving any NIH funding whatsoever. There is no reason why U.S. taxpayers need to be funding “foreign investigators” and their research, They can seek funding from their own government if that research is so vital. But the U.S. taxpayer shouldn’t be funding it at all.

Lucifer Morningstar | June 19, 2023 at 10:13 am

The ambiguity could mean that the policy will face legal challenges in some countries, says the Brazilian virologist. Many researchers work on several overlapping research projects from various funders, and some countries carefully safeguard data — for instance, biodiversity data in Brazil — that will be difficult to keep separate.

Well then, if you don’t like the policies that the U.S. will be enforcing for continued funding with U.S. taxpayer dollars than I suggest that this unnamed “Brazilian Virologist” seek funding from other sources rather than the NIH and U.S. taxpayers. That way you won’t have any conflict when it comes to the data you collect. Problem solved. Easy peezy.

What we are seeing here is a rough parallel of what the FBI did: actions taken by leadership in an organization designed only to promote their own power regardless of what damage that does to the organization’s reputation and ability to carry out the critical jobs the organization was created for.

The real fatalities are not occurring in the present or the past, but in the future when these agencies need their reputations to prevent some really devastating incident, and that well of public trust is dry.