Subscribe to my newsletter by clicking here!
UPDATED: DECEMBER 27, 2022
Though, I was aware NIAID Director Anthony Fauci was at NIH as the AIDS epidemic began; I was unaware that apparently, he was the self-proclaimed man who alleged to have been the scientist to realize they were, “dealing with a brand-new communicable disease.”
I wasn’t aware either that he talked to the media, indicating that no one even thought to look into this mysterious deaths of gay men by pneumonia; but apparently one day he saw gay men dying in the newspaper (or MMWR Report, depending on the source of the interview, and decade it was taken, initiating his career-long war against it.
Note how he calls 10 years, “extremely successful,” with a median survival rate of 28 weeks. 28 weeks is not a very long time, when measuring one’s remaining time to live.
It does make sense to me, though, it would be consistent with his actions during COVID-19, if he was actively discouraging the use of drugs that work, when he touted AZT—the infamous toxic drug which turned out to have intentionally falsified information given to the public, by none other than Dr Deborah Birx (also on the board of The Global Fund which funds vaccine projects) and Dr Robert Redfield (former director of NIH); which they got reprimanded for. (Pictures of documents pertaining to that in photos).
Remember, the ultra-politicized Food and Drug Administration [FDA] falsely claimed, after Fauci demonized the use of two well-established, known safe, cheap, and effective drugs—hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin; suddenly claiming they had risks of use that outweighed any possible benefits, and therefore prohibited doctors from prescribing them to treat COVID-19 patients early on.
Then the FDA went on to push Remdesivir, which is a brand new to market drug, which I did one of my first deep dives on, that had consistently shown in trials to cause equal or greater risks of severe adverse reactions than not, and has never been FDA approved. How can the risks not outweigh the benefits on a drug that has no known benefits?
The following explanation from PulmCrit explains how Gilead deceives you with their study:
The deceptive study by Gilead, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, (that “backed” the use of remdesivir for COVID-19) resulted in hospitalization in 48% of remdesivir trial patients. There were adverse effects in 74% of the remdesivir trial patients, with SERIOUS adverse effects in 35% and grade 3+ adverse reactions in 34% of the remdesivir trial patients (12% of which were even GRADE 4).
They even HAD TO DISCONTINUE THE STUDY BECAUSE THE MORTALITY RATE WAS 8% IN 5 DAYS/16% IN 10 DAYS. This is the drug that they replaced the ever-so-safe HCQ with.
Fauci also is very clear, that he maintains the belief that nothing can be safe until there is a vaccine for AIDS; a goal in which he still strives to accomplish to this day ($100 million dollars from Bill Gates in 2019 for HIV vax); even though the medicines people with AIDS take now increase life span up to 50 years.
He suspiciously chooses lesser-developed countries in Africa and Asia to test new vaccines. NIAID, as did Bill Gates. They have developed and contributed both viruses and vaccines (attempts mostly), in mostly poverty-stricken countries with the greatest population, in an attempt to vaccinate at least half of the global population, according to Dr Fauci.
Dr. Anthony Stephen Fauci was born the day before Christmas in 1940 to Brooklyn pharmacy owners Stephen and Eugenia Fauci. He grew up in a Catholic home, in the heavily Italian Brooklyn neighborhoods of Bensonhurst, and later in Dyker Heights, in the home above his parents’ pharmacy.
I’m sure it’s rather apparent that Dr. Fauci has since left the Catholic Church, but now he considers his religion as “being a humanist.”
Dr. Fauci attended one of the finest all-male schools in the nation—Regis High School, a private, all-boys Jesuit high school on Manhattan’s Upper East Side; in one of the wealthiest areas in New York City. Ironically, though he is not by any means a large man, he claims he was the captain of the RHS basketball team; graduating in 1958.
In a 2020 interview with The New Yorker, Fauci reminisced how he, “took four years of Greek, four years of Latin, three years of French, ancient history, theology,” he recalled. He developed an ability to set out an argument and to bolster it with evidence—good preparation, it turned out, for testifying before Congress. Last year, at a dinner that Regis held in his honor, he said that the school had taught him “to communicate scientific principles, or principles of basic and clinical research, without getting very profuse and off on tangents.””
Fauci continued his education, heading off to a Jesuit college, subsequently graduating in 1962 from the College of the Holy Cross, which recently named their new building after him—the Anthony S. Fauci Integrated Science Complex, with a Bachelor’s Degree in Classics, on the Pre-Med track. He graduated first in his medical school class with a Doctor in Medicine from Cornell University Medical College in 1966.
You know, as I’ve often described many, many times, I found myself more interested because of the classics. You know, I took that unusual pre-med course at Holy Cross, which was labelled at the time ‘AB Greek comma pre-med,’ in which I took more philosophy courses than I took science courses. So I always felt that I was more interested in human nature than I was in human physiology.Dr. Anthony Fauci, Oct 6, 2020 to College of the Holy Cross
I find it tremendously insightful, knowing Fauci’s first passion was philosophy, and ancient civilizations, and second, medicine; because his seamless transition into bureaucrat makes more
Dr. Fauci continued on to complete his internship and residency in Internal Medicine at New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center (now New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center).
Directly after finishing his residency, two years out of medical school, in 1968, Fauci joined the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a clinical associate in the Laboratory of Clinical Investigation (LCI) at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
In 1974, he became head of the Clinical Physiology Section, LCI, and in 1980 was appointed Chief of the Laboratory of Immunoregulation. In 1984, he became director of NIAID, which we all know if his current position.
Dr. Anthony S Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, is a prominent figure in 2020, though this is not his first time being in the spotlight. He has recently announced that he suggest we wear masks and socially distance after the vaccines have been distributed.
According to The New York Post, “Dr. Anthony Fauci said Sunday that it will still be necessary to social distance, wear masks and take other COVID-19 precautions after a vaccine becomes available to Americans.
“I would recommend to people to not to abandon all public health measures just because you’ve been vaccinated,” Fauci told CNN anchor Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”
“Because even though for the general population it might be 90 to 95 percent effective, you don’t necessarily know for you how effective it is.”
To me this appears to be a push for the dehumanization of We The People via the measures taken to prevent the spread of infection to a disease that, according to the CDC, those under the age of 69 have a 0.1% chance of dying from COVID-19, those under 49 years of age have a 0.01% chance of dying from COVID-19. This data from the CDC does not exclude people who fall into the “high risk” category.
If the effectiveness is supposedly 90%, then I don’t see how this would be necessary unless it was a push towards “The Great Reset” and dehumanization in order to see how far we’ll let them push and take our liberties. Senator Rand Paul questioned Dr Fauci on the Senate Floor in June of this year, and really grilled him over the reductions in liberties that are “justified” by statements Dr Fauci has made.
It wasn’t the first time Senator Paul schooled Dr Fauci. Here, he sure has done his homework including the rhesus monkeys being immune after infected with COVID-19, the immunity of humans, and the mortality rate being nearly 0 for anyone under 18 years of age. He discusses lockdowns effects on America and the comparison to countries like Sweden, who didn’t lock down. They are currently rated at 18th worst of Western nations.
Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) also grilled Dr. Fauci during a hearing in front of Congress, asking about whether the “peaceful protests” should not be recommended during COVID-19. Dr. Fauci refused to opine on the matter, even though he stated that large groups gathering is not recommended.
Dr. Fauci also flip-flopped on the recommendation for wearing masks. In the beginning Dr. Fauci told us that there was no reason for us to wear masks. He later reversed course on masks and said he only deceived the American people because masks needed to be saved for frontline workers.
Nothing about the science of face masks changed in the time that he made this switch in beliefs on mask wearing, yet suddenly he decided we needed to dehumanize the population by covering our smiles.
My research on masks from August, 2020 proves, scientifically, that the 120nm SARS-CoV-2 is so tiny that wearing cloth/surgical masks stop as little as 7% of the virus expelled in a cough.
Most people like to make the argument that it stops large droplets of spittle. Yes, that’s true, however the saliva and mucus are just what you can see while the majority of the aerosolized particles are not hitchhiking on your spit the droplets and are invisible to the naked eye, or even a regular microscope! Bacteria, which averages 1000nm in size, is much larger and able to have a lower penetration rate than the coronavirus.
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, is the most talked about and well-known scientist of modern times. He has testified in front of Congress on over 200 occasions, and he has worked with every President of America since Ronald Reagan! He is highly criticized and best known for his work on the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Appointed Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1984, Dr. Fauci “oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections, influenza, tuberculosis, malaria and illness from potential agents of bioterrorism.“
In the interview, Dr. Fauci claims to be the person who discovered the correlation between homosexuals dying of pneumonia and it being a new virus, the AIDS virus. He says he saw the gay men that died from pneumonia two months in a row, the first in Los Angeles and the latter in San Francisco and New York City, which “gave him goosebumps” and instantly made him think it was a new sexually transmitted disease. It is definitely not something I have heard before this interview.
Science Speaks reports, “John Donnelly interviewed Dr. Fauci for Science Speaks’ series on the 30th anniversary  since the discovery of a virus that would turn out to be HIV, and he talked about everything from how he first learned of the disease, to his surprise in President George W. Bush’s commitment, to the unmet needs today to fight the pandemic.“
How were you first involved in the AIDS epidemic?
I’ve been involved from the beginning, and I’m still here. Over a period of 10 years, from 1972 to 1981, I was a rather successful clinical immunologist-type person with a clinical interest in infectious disease. Through luck, among other things, I found myself on a project that was developing essential treatment, if not a cure, for some unusual diseases characterized by the inflammation of blood vessels… Then one day, and I don’t mean to be melodramatic, while sitting at my NIH office in the clinical center – June 5, 1981 – the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report landed on my desk and it reported five gay men, from Los Angeles, otherwise healthy, presenting with this strange pneumonia, Pneumocystis pneumonia, which we used to see on clinical patients with cancer. I was familiar with this and that it was seen only in persons with dramatically suppressed immune systems.
I remember putting the issue to the side of my desk, thinking, ‘Wow, what a bizarre curiosity.’ One month later, in July, a second Morbidity and Mortality issue came to my desk, and this time, an additional 26 men had it, again all gay, all seemingly healthy, and not only in LA, but now also in San Francisco and New York City. I remember reading it very clearly. It was the first time in my medical career I actually got goose pimples. I no longer dismissed it as a curiosity. There was something very wrong here. This was really a new microbe of some sort, acting like a sexually transmitted disease.
In retrospect, it was a game-changer of my career. It completely changed the direction of my research away from a rather successful practice of bringing in patients and studying them to bringing in sick patients who had no idea why they were sick. I was treating people successfully for 10 years and went to a period over the next few years in which the median survival of my patients was measured in weeks, 28 weeks. I went from happy years of making people better to a period of close to a decade of the dark years in which most of my patients died.
After these dark years, what was most memorable?
There was the discovery of AZT [or zidovudine, the first antiretroviral approved for the treatment of HIV] in 1987, then single and double combination of drugs the next couple of years, and then, in 1996, came highly active antiretroviral therapy. That was truly a transforming phase in the history of HIV. Now, we had patients, destined to going to hospice, who were all getting well. We went from 28 weeks median survival to now, in 2011, where the mathematical modeling of a 20-something-year-old person with recently diagnosed HIV who is put on antiretroviral therapy will live at least another 50 – that’s five zero – years. That is one of the most profound accomplishments in the relationship of biomedical research and drug development and clinical outcome.
The other historical issues for me personally were the interactions I had with various presidents and various members of Congress. I had the experience of all the differences on HIV/AIDS from Reagan to George H.W. Bush, who took a significant interest, to Clinton and George W. Bush and Obama. During the Reagan years, President Reagan didn’t speak hardly at all about HIV/AIDS, and so when people thought about the federal government and AIDS, they would think of me and Jim Curran (then the chief of the research branch of the Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases at the CDC). So when the activists started to appropriately react to the rigidity of the clinical trials, for instance, they started storming the NIH and burning people like me in effigies, and Larry Kramer, now a close friend, was calling me a murderer.
The best thing I’ve done from a sociological and community standpoint was to embrace the activists. Instead of rejecting them, I listened to them. I remember looking out a window and people on the lawn of the NIH were throwing smoke bombs. The Montgomery County Police were ready to arrest them and I said, ‘Don’t. Bring them up to my office so I can talk with them.’ The interaction with the activists was a major chapter in the 30-year journey of this.
Another thing that was very important in the 30 years to me was when I was asked by George W. Bush to go to Africa to put together a proposal for a program to fight AIDS. He said he wanted a game-changer that would impact the developing world. He sent me to Africa in 2002 to look at the feasibility of a program for treatment, prevention and care. I spent seven or eight months in 2002 putting together mathematical models of how many countries can we do this in, what was feasible, what would it cost, what was the best approach. I employed someone to help me out, a fellow in my lab, Mark Dybul, who later went on to become the U.S. Global AIDS Ambassador. We presented the options multiple times to the president’s staff, and to the president himself, and he accepted the proposal for $15 billion over five years. That become what we now call the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.
What surprised you most in your interactions with the presidents? Was it Bush’s decision?
It was surprising that it was with George W. Bush. A lot of people speak a good game about what they want to do. He said I want to do something transforming and he did it. He wasn’t particularly popular at the time. It was right before the Iraq War and he looked us in the eye and said, ‘We as a rich country have the obligation to do things for those who are less fortunate than we are.’ It surprised me he mandated something for $15 billion. People in the Office of Management and Budget laughed at us when we suggested $15 billion. They said, ‘For foreign aid? Are you nuts?’ But the president said, ‘Yes, I want to do it.’
How did you come up with the target numbers for treatment, care, and prevention, and for the price tag of PEPFAR?
We consulted with a lot of people. It wasn’t just me and Mark Dybul. It was Mark and I and a couple of modelers and we were relying heavily on the advice of African colleagues who were already doing it, people like Peter Mugyenyi of Uganda. He had a model that had a central core of treatment, with clinics, and it became less sophisticated care as you went out farther and farther from the center, but everything was linked together. We also picked countries in which we would get at least 50 percent of all the infected people in the world. We figured out that of those people, about one-third of them would require therapy right now given their stage of infection. So in the beginning, the budget was heavily weighted toward therapy early on – more than 50 percent was for treatment; just 20 percent was for prevention. But now as we get better prevention modalities, prevention is becoming a greater share of the pie.
In looking ahead, what are the unmet needs now?
The challenges are really in the arena of prevention. For every person we put on treatment, two or three people get newly infected. But if we have a microbicide, a moderately effective vaccine, treatment as prevention, voluntary medical male circumcision, the possibility even of a cure for HIV, there’s a lot of things going on now that are both exciting and challenging.
I see unmet needs in two ways – unmet scientific needs and unmet implementation needs. One is as important as the other. The implementation need now has an impact on the scientific need. We’re starting to see that the earlier you are put on therapy, not only is it better for that person’s own health, but it possibly creates a decrease in transmission overall. We are starting to get very good cumulative data on discordant couples – where the infected partner is treated and not only is it good for them, but it prevents them from infecting the HIV-negative sexual partner. We have cohorts in cities, like Vancouver and San Francisco, where they are universally treating everybody and you see a correlation between treatment and the levels of infection in the community.
Of the scientific challenges, the Holy Grail is going to be a vaccine. I don’t think, and my colleagues agree, that there will be a singular prevention modality. If we are going to put an end to HIV/AIDS, the dynamic will be a combination of prevention modalities. It could be topical microbicides, pre-exposure prophylaxis, male circumcision, and even a vaccine that is a bit more effective than the 31 percent we got from the Thai trial.
The other one is trying to find a cure for HIV – the most daunting challenge of all. I have an idea we might be able to cure at least a fraction of people. It’s probably too much to ask that we will have a universal cure for HIV. But in some, we will likely be able to discontinue therapy with a certain fraction of new drugs, working by different mechanisms than the current drugs, by starting people early on therapy so the reservoir of the virus becomes much lower.
Obviously, increasing treatment, and using it as prevention, is going to cost a lot more money than is being talked about today.
Yes. It depends when you want to spend the money. You can spend it now and put your arms around the epidemic and change the kinetics of it so you don’t have 1.8 million people dying every year and 2.8 million people infected every year. You need to seek, test and treat, and link all of them to care. If you don’t put in the money now, sooner or later you are going to have to pay at the end of the spectrum. And if you do that, at the end of the day, the amount of money spent is going to be much more. I am totally sensitive to the financial constraints we have, but I believe in the big picture of things, investing more money now is the way to go.
I knew Fauci was at NIH at the same time as the start of the AIDS epidemic, but I was unaware that he was the man who figured out that there was such a thing as AIDS, or even thought to look into this mysterious deaths of gay men by pneumonia, but apparently he saw gay men dying two different days over a months time, and discovered it. In all I’ve read, I never saw anything about that, but hes the one who said it in the interview below.
Note how he calls 10 years extremely successful with a median survival rate of 28 weeks, which obviously is not a very long time. It makes sense though that he would discourage drugs that work when he touted AZT which turned out to have intentionally falsified information given to the public by none other than Dr. Birx (also on the board of The Global Fund which funds vaccine projects) and Dr. Redfield (director of NIH), which they got reprimanded for. (Pictures of documents pertaining to that in photos).
The FDA says a well established, safe, cheap drug, hydroxychloroquine, has risks outweighing benefits and cannot be used; then they push Remdesivir which is a brand new drug that has equal or greater risks of severe adverse reactions and has never been FDA approved. How can the risks not outweigh the benefits on a drug that has no known benefits? Curious.
Fauci also is very clear that nothing will be safe until there is a vaccine, which he still strives to accomplish to this day (He received $100 million dollars from Bill Gates in 2019 for HIV vaccine), even though he claims medicines people with AIDS take now increase life span up to 50 years. Through the Decade of Vaccines that he is on the Leadership Council for, he picks countries in Africa and Asia to test vaccines. NIAID and Bill Gates both have developed viruses and vaccines (attempts mostly) in (poverty-stricken) countries with the greatest population to be able to vaccinate half of the population, according to Dr. Fauci.
During COVID-19, he has made it clear that life could never go back to “normal” if we don’t have a vaccine, and that even then, it may not be able to return back to normal. He told CNN, that the US government must “get people to take the vaccine” against Covid-19.
The conversation between CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dr. Fauci as reported by RT, ““That’s great, but we have to get people to take the vaccine,” Fauci said. Should Americans line up for the shot, he predicted that “we could start getting things back to relative normal as we get into the second and third quarter of the year, where people can start thinking about doing things that were too dangerous just months ago.”
As for what activities Fauci considers “too dangerous,” the coronavirus chief told CBS News on Friday that anyone celebrating Thanksgiving or Christmas with their families keep masks on indoors, and weigh the “risk/benefit ratio” before traveling for the holidays. Asked by Tapper if “Christmas is probably not going to be possible,” Fauci punted the question, and talked again about the need to “get most of the country vaccinated.””
Global Health Leaders Launch Decade of Vaccines Collaboration | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
In 2010, Fauci teamed up with Bill Gates, holding a position on the Leadership Council of the Global Vaccine Action Plan, meant according to Bill Gates “to guide discovery, development and delivery of lifesaving vaccines”.
According to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, “the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have announced a collaboration to increase coordination across the international vaccine community and create a Global Vaccine Action Plan. This plan will build on the successes of current work to achieve key milestones in the discovery, development and delivery of lifesaving vaccines to the most vulnerable populations in the poorest countries over the next decade.
The collaboration follows the January 2010 call by Bill and Melinda Gates for the next ten years to be the Decade of Vaccines. The Global Vaccine Action Plan will enable greater coordination across all stakeholder groups – national governments, multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector and philanthropic organizations — and will identify critical policy, resource, and other gaps that must be addressed to realize the life-saving potential of vaccines.
The structure of the Decade of Vaccines Collaboration includes a Leadership Council to provide oversight for the planning effort, a Steering Committee that holds the primary responsibility for developing the action plan, an International Advisory Committee to assist the Leadership Council in evaluating the action plan, and a Secretariat for administrative support.”
The Decade of Vaccines Collaboration expects to begin globally implementing their action plans by mid-2012.
They briefly state the following regarding the NIH’s involvement in the Decade of Vaccine, “The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) conducts and supports research to study the causes of infectious and immune-mediated diseases, and to develop better means of preventing, diagnosing and treating these illnesses. NIAID is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is a component of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and the primary U.S. federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research.
Bill Gates has been very vocal about wanting to vaccinate the world for everything no matter the risks, and it is worrisome that Dr. Fauci is a member of the philanthropist’s vaccination project.
Personally, I believe that Dr. Fauci is another person in a position of power that is a working part of “The Great Reset“, a plan by the Economic World Forum to fundamentally change the global economy.
We cannot let them push us any further. They will keep stealing our liberties away until we are no longer capable emotionally or physically to resist when the final straw comes. We mustn’t let them demoralize us. We cannot be the Silent Majority any longer!
This interview with Jim Caviezel is so powerful. Maybe it will motivate you to speak out and stand up as a conservative. I implore everyone to watch it. It is not time to sit idly by and watch the world turn. It is time to stand up and spread the truth.
Call to Action:
- Get/stay INFORMED AND EDUCATED
- Watch/read news from BOTH SIDES.
- PROTECT your family and fellow Patriots
- Engage in CIVIL DISCOURSE
- REFUTE misinformation
- DO NOT fall into the Third Party trap. Remember Ross Perot is how Clinton got elected.
This is a civil war between Communism and America. There is no more Democrat vs Republican right now. America needs to be united in the party of Patriots who believe in our constitution and the inherent right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The radical Left has thrown their hail Mary, and we need to get our heads in the game and intercept that pass before it’s too late. Whether or not you believe Orange Man Bad, The Republicans who followed President Donald J Trump are the only hope for remaining a constitutional republic.
NEVER FORGET: They are Rights enumerated to remind us and our government of our innate and indisputable liberties that are granted to us by our Creator, not our government; NEVER to be infringed or impinged upon by elected officials nor bureaucratic narcissists, ALWAYS as protection for We The People from tyranny and despotism at even the highest level of our hierarchical structure.
This page is a conservative-leaning blog that takes the facts from current events and gives objective information as well as my opinion on those facts. I am not an expert in any field, nor do I claim to give expert advice, but I will try to get you all of the evidence-based information I can find.
8 thoughts on “36 Years of Fauci”
Have you ever considered about adding a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is important and all. However just imagine if you added some great photos or video clips to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with images and clips, this blog could definitely be one of the best in its niche. Terrific blog!
some genuinely excellent content on this internet site, appreciate it for contribution.
You’re so interesting! I don’t believe I’ve read a single thing like that before. So good to find someone with a few original thoughts on this topic. Seriously.. many thanks for starting this up. This web site is one thing that is needed on the web, someone with a bit of originality!
Can I just say what a relief to find somebody who really knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You definitely know the right way to deliver a problem to light and make it important. Extra people have to read this and perceive this side of the story. I cant imagine youre no more well-liked since you definitely have the gift.
Excellent goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you’re just extremely wonderful. I actually like what you’ve acquired here, certainly like what you are stating and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it smart. I cant wait to read far more from you. This is actually a tremendous site.
Good day! I could have sworn I’ve visited this blog before but after going through a few of the posts I realized it’s new to me. Regardless, I’m certainly pleased I stumbled upon it and I’ll be bookmarking it and checking back frequently!
This is nicely detailed and helpful, thankyou. I appreciate the way you explain points succinctly. It’s great info and I find you worth a follow.