Skip to content

Dr. Fauci Reemerges from the Shadows to Talk Retirement — But Clearly Can’t Wait to Lock America Down Again

    Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been the controversial head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the United States for decades, is teasing Americans with talk of his retirement. Watch:

    “You know, you’ve said, you’re going to stay in this job until we get out of the pandemic phase,” ABC News’ “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos said. “Of course, you’ve been serving your country now for decades. Are we approaching the point where we are past the pandemic phase? And you’ll like, go get some rest.”

    Dr. Fauci grinned at the framing of Stephanopoulos’ question.

    “I’m not so sure George, I want to make sure we’re really out of this before I really seriously consider doing anything different,” he said. “We’re still in this. We have a way to go. I think we’re got clearly going in the right direction. I hope we stay that way.”

    But Fauci apparently seemed poised to “pivot” with lockdown policies and mandates that have been proven decisively to have failed to stop the spread of Covid-19.

    “If we do see a significant surge, particularly one that might result in increased hospitalizations, we have to be prepared to pivot and perhaps reinstitute some of those restrictions,” he said at one point in the interview.

    The objective analysis of the Covid-19 policy responses around the world demonstrate convincingly that lockdowns failed to lead to improved outcomes, as measured by Covid-19 case rates, as well as declines in all-cause mortality rates.

    A new analysis published at the scientific journal “Lancet” has provided further evidence that Covid policies implemented by public health experts around the globe failed to substantially lower excess deaths.

    As the Lancet article, “Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–21,” explains, “the magnitude and distribution of many other causes of death might have changed because of social, economic, and behavioural responses to the pandemic, including strict lockdowns. Under these conditions, excess mortality can provide a more accurate assessment of the total mortality impact of the COVID-19 pandemic than reported COVID-19 deaths.”

    “Our excess mortality estimates reflect the full impact of the pandemic on mortality around the world, and not only deaths directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the article explains about its model, which incorporated all-cause mortality reports for 74 countries and territories and 266 subnational locations.

    An exhaustive Johns Hopkins University comparative analysis published in January found that strict lockdowns failed to significantly reduce Covid-related deaths.

    “Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University,” the Washington Times reported.  “The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.”

    “We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.

    Importantly, the Covid lockdowns and policy mandates were unprecedented in their scope for any global pandemic in world history. They caused a massive amount of economic damage and social division, but produced virtually insignificant net benefits for public health.

    “Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors conclude. “Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who state, “Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission.”

    “The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors added. “Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.”

    Such overwhelming evidence is not stopping the outgoing NIAID Director Dr. Fauci from continuing to insist that an increase in hospitalizations could lead to more futile impositions on Americans’ rights and freedoms.

    If one recalls, Dr. Fauci himself at one point admitted that mandates were a restriction on Americans’ civil liberties.

    “You know, I don’t think we’ve ever had a situation where you mandated for the general population,” Fauci said in a 2020 interview.

    “That has not happened, ever, to my knowledge, at a national level or even at a state level,” he continued. “So, I could see individual institutions mandating a vaccine. I don’t see it at a national level.”

    “Merely, because of all of the situations you have upon, encroaching upon a person’s freedom to make their own choice on their own health,” he added.

    Yet, this is precisely what Dr. Fauci and his corrupt cohorts in America’s politicized “public health” sector intend to do once again — if not merely to perpetuate their own broken narrative, but to provide the Democratic Party with the political cover to rig another election.


    Rand Paul Vows Payback for Fauci: Senator Makes Promise to Biden’s Top Covid Doc If Republicans Take Senate

    "*" indicates required fields

    Who's your favorite former President?*
    This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
    This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

    OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.