‘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

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.