The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today on the recently released Fauci diaries. It is sharply critical of Dr. Fauci, portraying him as vain, politically manipulative, and more concerned with his public image than he has admitted.
I don’t know enough about the diaries to judge whether every criticism in the editorial is fair. What struck me, however, wasn’t anything in the diaries. It was something Dr. Fauci himself admitted years ago.
Early in the pandemic Dr. Fauci advised the public not to wear masks. Later he acknowledged that this advice was, at least in part, intended to conserve the limited supply of masks for healthcare workers. In other words, he deliberately told the public something other than what he believed to be true because he thought doing so would produce a better outcome.
I understand the dilemma. There really was a shortage of masks. Healthcare workers really did need priority. But there is a line that public officials cross at their peril. Their most valuable asset is not authority or expertise. It is credibility.
Once a public official admits that he has deliberately misled the public—even for what he believes is a good reason—every subsequent statement becomes suspect. If he was willing to tell me something he believed to be false yesterday because he thought it would produce a better result, why should I assume he is telling me the whole truth today?
Scientists are wrong all the time. That’s the nature of science. New evidence appears. Hypotheses are revised. Recommendations change. I have no objection to that.
I do object to being managed rather than informed.
In a free society, citizens are entitled to the best judgment of their public officials, not what those officials think citizens ought to hear. The moment experts decide that the public cannot be trusted with the truth, they begin to squander the very trust on which their influence ultimately depends.
That, more than anything I have read in today’s editorial, is why my confidence in Dr. Fauci’s subsequent pronouncements was so seriously diminished.
Completely agree. It was an unconscionable lie.
Dave Schuler: In other words, he deliberately told the public something other than what he believed to be true because he thought doing so would produce a better outcome.
The effectiveness of masks, or even the transmissibility of Covid, was little understood at the time. Advising against masks at that time was not an unreasonable position. As the situation evolved, so did the advice.
You would be well served to look at the diaries and compare to recommendations. Some of us are not surprised. It’s been obvious for years.
Fauci is a piece of shit.
After reading some of the excepts from the Fauci diaries, it turns out I was personally harmed by Anthony Fauci. The ACIP board had recommended booster COVID shots for only a limited portion of the population (65 and over and serious health issues). It turns out the booster shots had a negative efficacy (people with booster shots more likely to catch COVID than people with just the vaccine). Per his diary, Fauci exerted significant pressure on Director Walensky to overturn the ACIP board recommendation. Based on his pressure, booster shots were recommended for the general population.
I had a severe reaction to the booster shot which caused me to develop POTS. My pulse would jump from 60 to 120+ just by standing up. I has nausea, dizziness, light sensitivity, brain fog, blood pressure issues, heat sensitivity, and I lost 15 pounds in one month after the booster shot. I was unable to work a full day at the plant for over seven months. I improved after I caught COVID, but still continue to have issues. I filed a VAERS report and CICP claim (still waiting after over 4 years).
I think Drew describes Fauci quite well.
Where is Dr. Steve? He was a devoted follower of the COVID melodrama created by much of the misinformation provided by Fauci. Doctors coming forward disagreeing with him, producing formidable data refuting claims that early treatment with repurposed well known drugs like HCQ and Ivermectin worked well, not requiring a rushed vaccine being introduced through an emergency order, were discredited many losing their licenses or doctor privileges in hospitals.
Fauci, in his own words in a diary written on a government site, has proven to be a cretin, a diabolical self serving monster with no conscience, who negatively changed lives, caused many deaths, and continues to be supported by cowardly democrats.
We have discussed this before and I have always agreed he was wrong to lie about masks. After that when conditions changed we had better literature he changed recommendations but that was twisted by his opponents into his lying. Otherwise his recommendations pretty much followed what the medical literature supported. I do think his interpretations were pretty conservative eg it was pretty clear we had asymptomatic spread well before that was acknowledged.
I will confess I am kind of bored with the Fauci witch hunt. I have spent hours reading original literature and comments from real virologists and the claims against Fauci almost always end up false. In this case we have selective stuff released without context. Some people think it’s a smoking gun that he made some recommendations they dont like but Fauci had no power to implement policy. That was done largely at the state level or by Trump officials.
A lot of, probably most of this, is centered around the covid origins argument. We dont know its origin and to date the evidence we have supports animal origin. I think that the virus coming from a wet market is just as bad or worse than a lab leak and China should have faced some consequences. Instead we have this focus on Fauci. I guess it helps conservatives forget Trump was president in 2020 and ultimately responsible.
Steve
OK, I guess I cant pass this up. Some ZTrumpies are upset that in Jan 2020 Fauci said he didnt believe covid came from the market. First, that was very early and we had limited evidence at that point. We got more and better evidence later. Second, while he didnt think the market was the focus he did believe it was animal derived.
Steve
jan- I didnt just watch it I was working through it reading the literature and talking with those who had more expertise. At this point very few people use Ivermectin or any of the other drugs you like. Lots of good studies are available now that are large enough to be meaningful, are prospective and randomized (RCTs) and have been peer reviewed. They consistently show no effect. It is notable that the early meta-analyses which showed positive effects had individual studies with obvious fraud eg every pt in the study having the same demographic info. Link goes to most recent meta-analysis including only RCTS.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12879-026-13195-9
STEVE
Charlie Musick: The ACIP board had recommended booster COVID shots for only a limited portion of the population (65 and over and serious health issues).
The limitation refers to an additional dose beyond the annual COVID vaccine. ACIP’s recommendation at the time was that essentially everyone should receive the annual updated COVID vaccine, while the extra dose was specifically recommended for people 65 and older and those who were moderately or severely immunocompromised.
https://www.cdc.gov/acip/evidence-to-recommendations/covid-19-2024-2025-additional-dose.html
Thanks Zachriel. I forgot to add that. So much of the misinformation about covid exists because people dont read the original writings and we get a whisper down the lane effect where people, often people without any expertise in the area they are criticizing, repeat stuff they have heard and it just gets distorted in the retellings. Remember the 94% and 6% controversy? It was all because people dont understand how you fill out death certificates. Since I have filled them out it was never an issue I worried about. Then people read these false claims or distorted claims and they believe them forever.
Steve
Zachriel, by the guidance you provided in your attachment, I would not have been recommended for a second dose in 2021 when my vaccine injury occurred. I had already had the two vaccine shots around May 2021, I would not have been recommended another booster shot.
More importantly, my booster shot was administered based on a 2021 ACIP ruling, not the 2024 guidance. Here are the Fauci files:
https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf
On page 883 Fauci writes: “Today was the day that the acip would make their recommendation to the CDC regarding the use of boosters. Inexplicably, they voted to allow boosters for people 65
years of age or older, which is fine, as well as those from 18 to 64 with underlying conditions leading to severe disease, which is fine . However, they rejected the proposal to give boosters to people who by occupational or institutional exposure would find themselves at high risk for infection.”
ACIP HAD REJECTED BOOSTERS FOR PEOPLE WITH OCCUPATONAL EXPOSURE. HEALTHY PEOPLE BELOW AGE 65 WERE NOT ON THE LIST EITHER.
He later writes: “I finally got a chance to speak with Rochelle and literally begged her to override that decision which was only a 9 to 6 decision and not an overwhelming unanimous recommendation.”
BY HIS OWN ACCOUNT, HE PRESSURE WALEENSKY TO OVERRIDE THE ACIP RECOMMENDATION. She did override their decision and added healthy people under the age of 65. This decision was based on pressure from Fauci, not science.
Charlie Musick: Fauci writes: “Today was the day that the acip
Yes, Fauci pushed for people with high occupational exposure to be allowed (not required) to get a booster. And, according to the transcript you provided, he said he was basing it on scientific evidence. But that doesn’t justify your claim that “Based on his pressure, booster shots were recommended for the general population.”
Charlie Musick: It turns out the booster shots had a negative efficacy (people with booster shots more likely to catch COVID than people with just the vaccine).
That is not seem to be supported by the evidence. The most widely cited study, the Cleveland Clinic employee study in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, showed waning effectiveness in the short run, but still positive efficacy. In the longer run, the numbers straddled zero, but that was not a controlled result, which would have required controlling for employee traits, such as general health, likelihood of submitting to testing for mild symptoms, and behavioral differences (people who were more exposed would tend to both be more vaccinated and more likely to be infected). Regardless, hospitalizations and deaths were reduced.
Zachriel: “For the week of April 23, it said the rate of COVID-19 infections among boosted Americans was 119 cases per 100,000 people. That was more than double the rate of infections in those who were vaccinated but unboosted, but a fraction of the levels among unvaccinated Americans.” This was from 2022.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-vaccine-booster-shot-infection-rate/
The Danish study showed negative booster efficacy against Omicron after 90 days:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v3.full.pdf
Without evidence, both articles claim that it may be the results of behavioral differences when people were boosted.
Charlie Musick: Without evidence, both articles claim that it may be the results of behavioral differences when people were boosted.
The issue isn’t that behavioral differences have been proven. The issue is that the study did not measure or control for them, so the observed association cannot tell us whether the higher infection rates were caused by the booster or by differences in exposure, testing, prior infection, or behavior. The study neither rules in nor rules out confounding factors.
“Absence of evidence for confounding” is not the same as “evidence of the absence of confounding.”
Zachriel, on page 916, Fauci specifically talks about the reluctance of ACIP to recommend the booster for everyone, and he is strongly pushing of it.
“Nov. 9, 2021 – Global – 249,743,428/5,047,652; USA – 46,541,113/753,564
Pfizer announced yesterday that they were going to ask the FDA to approve on an EUA boosters for everyone 18 years old and older. There is still concern on the part of Rochelle that the ACIP will not recommend boosters for everyone but would hold back on younger individuals particularly young men because of the risk of myocarditis. I have been pushing hard within the Medical Group as well as publicly saying that given the fact that we have plateaued on cases at around 70,000 per day and that we have already lost 750,000 Americans we should clearly boost everyone. Germany has already decided to boost every adult as has Israel. This is a situation where I am clearly at odds with the conservative approach of the ACIP.”
“I pleaded with her over the phone telling her that I would absolutely strongly defend her publicly if she made allowance for teachers and healthcare workers to get vaccinated even though they were healthy. Again, she seemed hesitant to overrule them. Jeff called me multiple times asking me to call the secretary myself. I felt that I could not do this since it would be totally destroying Rochelle if I did that. I explained to Rochelle that if she does not do that she would be forever branded as someone with no leadership capabilities at all and if she did overrule them she could turn lemons into lemonade because she could reclaim her role as a leader since her reputation is one of unfortunately being a very weak leader.” – Anthony Fauci
This reminds me of the old saying:
If you put a spoonful f wine in a barrel of sewage, you get sewage.
If you put a spoonful of sewage in a barrel of wine, you get sewage.
If you put a spoonful of science in a barrel of politics, you get politics.
If you put a spoonful of politics in a barrel of science, you get politics.
Charlie Musick: BY HIS OWN ACCOUNT, HE PRESSURE WALEENSKY TO OVERRIDE THE ACIP RECOMMENDATION. She did override their decision and added healthy people under the age of 65.
2021-09: ACIP authorized boosters for only for vulnerable groups (adults 65+, long-term-care residents, certain underlying medical conditions. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky added an occupational exception (healthcare workers, teachers, correctional staff).
2021-11: Fauci publicy and privately pushes for universal boosting. ACIP recommended universal boosting, FDA authorizes universal boosting, CDC adopted the recommendation.
Charlie Musick: I pleaded with her over the phone telling her that I would absolutely strongly defend her publicly
That is better support for your contention that Fauci pushed for general distribution of the booster.
* The diary indicates Fauci was doing so because he thought the science supported it.
* Fauci was allowed to push his views.
* Fauci did not have authority over the decision.
* All vaccine protections wane over time. In the case of Covid, the virus was rapidly evolving.
* The data shows that the boosters had a significant benefit in the short-term, and there is no conclusive evidence of significant adverse effects.
* There are always adverse effects from vaccines. For instance, the Cutter Incident resulted in thousands of polio infections, with resulting paralysis and death in some cases. Even today, polio outbreaks have been traced to vaccination (with oral live-virus vaccines).
* Because there are always adverse effects from vaccination, it’s a question of balance. That you were damaged by a polio vaccine is regrettable, but policy-makers have to make their judgments based on the available science and a balance of factors. In the case of COVID, thousands were dying every month.
* You might contend that the medical establishment got it wrong. The evidence suggests otherwise. Regardless, it’s not a criminal matter as suggested by some.
In private they disagreed about the literature and the best course to take. Note that the initial vote was 9 to 6 so others on the committee agreed with his interpretation. Fauci didnt really have any decision making power but he convinced her to approve it for at risk people. Seems to me that this largely how things should work. I am not sure what is regarded as politics here. Heaven knows I have had dozens of disagreements on the correct way to interpret literature. (IIRC I think part of the concern was wanting insurance to pay for the boosters which they may not have without an official recommendation.)
Steve