Everywhere I go I see immunologist Dr. Anthony Fauci, the long-serving director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984…
And, he continues to say nothing, flip-flops between positions and continues to be the face of the American political response to the Communist Chinese Wuhan Virus.
Most individuals, as they go about their daily activities, tending to their families, earning a living, and interacting with other individuals, like to think that there are some brilliant people, known as government experts, taking care of business and preventing catastrophes on all levels, local, state, and national.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the so-called experts are taking care of themselves first. Only when their self-interests coincide with the people's self-interests do "We the People" benefit.
And that's the truth; the government is not looking out for the very constituency that pays their salaries and provides power, perks, and privileges.
Pretty much why our Founding Fathers put forth a constitution limiting the power of the federal government and instituting a system of checks and balances.
They did not envision the evilness of a single party majority so malevolent as to put their collective needs above the nation's needs or its citizens. They did not envision a lazy congress that would create outlines of legislation and leave the actual creation of laws, in the form of administrative rules and regulations, to the executive branch of government. And they certainly did not envision a supreme court that went beyond the determination of constitutionality and resolving interstate disputes to usurping Congress's law-making role and instituting their definitions and so-called "bright-line" tests that become de facto law. There entire country subject to the political whims of 9 individuals.
They also did not envision behemoth bureaucracies, filled with experts whose work was so abstract and technical that it could not be monitored and evaluated by ordinary individuals.
This brings us to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the omnipresent ubiquitous Dr. Anthony Fauci -- popularly known as "The Fauch."
When Fauci makes another pronouncement labeled as "The Science," what individuals check Fauci's credibility; first in evaluating the information given his limited expertise in fields outside of immunology, and second in assessing the validity of the information he is providing to others?
Especially when the information is filtered by the mainstream media, celebrities, pastors, and basement-swelling idiots on social media platforms.
An example of the Fauci dance…
Excerpts from a discussion with Fauci on whether or not a single dose of a vaccine will suffice to protect individuals on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd (Sunday, February 21, 2021) <Source>
CHUCK TODD: All right. There’s -- you and I have had conversations about the first dose versus the second dose a couple of times now. We've gotten another study out of Pfizer having to do, hearing more about the first dose, particularly for folks that have had Covid. Any of these new studies giving you any sense of -- of where we would change our vaccine distribution schedule? Make it where we're 12 weeks for everybody or six weeks for everybody? What of these studies is giving you any sense of whether we should change these protocols?
[OCS: Perhaps a more honest answer would be to note that the analysis of this single study is outside of Fauci’s area of expertise in immunology, and due to the sample size, study methodology, and other factors such as co-morbidities, the study needs to be, at the very least, replicated and validated before it is used to inform a public policy that can affect a large portion of the population. In essence, we do not know what we do not know.]
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, Chuck, I think the people need to appreciate the view is -- they're really two very different scenario that you just painted. One is if you've been infected and you get vaccinated after that, what about one dose? The other is if you've not been infected and you get one dose of Pfizer, can you get away with one dose or prolong the second dose? And I would still maintain that there are enough unknowns in that, particularly the durability of the protection. We know from studies that we did that anti-dated and led up to the very, very impressive results with the 94% to 95% efficacy with both Moderna and Pfizer that when you give a boost, you increase the power or the level of the antibodies by at least ten-fold. So you're talking about a very, very big increase. We don't know what the durability of a single dose is. And it really is risky. Risky for lack of protection, and risky to engender, perhaps, some variants. With regards to following infection, that's a different story because the data look really quite impressive that if you've been infected and then you get a single dose, the boost that you get with that single dose is really enormous. So we're looking very carefully about that. And that is one thing that you might want to consider. But we want to really carefully look at the data first. But those are two different scenarios. You don't want to confuse them.
CHUCK TODD: And I just was going to say, so let's say you see the science and you feel good about this, about if you've had Covid, one dose may be enough. I'm just curious, logistically, what would that mean? Would you have -- somebody would have to come in and show proof they've had Covid? Is that something -- or they would be tested there for antibodies? Like, I feel like that's the one gap here that would complicate it just logistically.
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Right. Well, that's the reason why I held back, Chuck, in saying, “yes, let's recommend that.” You've really got to look at the science, look at the data and figure out what's the best way. The obvious one that you think of is the documentation that if you do an antibody test, and it's very clear that this person has been infected, that then you could be reasonably comfortable that you're dealing with someone who is post-infection. But I would reserve any kind of decisions about that until we very carefully looked at the data. But it is really quite suggestive. The data are really impressive.
CHUCK TODD: So this is something you think could be something that in four, six, eight weeks, something like that, we could change protocol?
DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, you know, again, I don't want to get ahead of the decision-making process on TV. But I think it's quite reasonable from the data that we've seen, that you want to take a good look at it because the data are impressive.
[OCS: Fauci does not know the answer to the vaccine dosing protocol or the following questions about herd immunity, but he is upbeat and positive, the perfect platitude-spouting guest. After watching the program, the audience knows nothing and is more confused than ever. ]
The bottom line…
How many of you have noticed that science's credibility has been destroyed by self-serving politicians, bureaucrats, and organizations who found that promoting "the fashionable science of the day" would lead to well-paid jobs, grants, and government contracts?
As filtered through self-interested third-parties, science became the justification of public policies that had nothing to do with science; in fact, following "the science" often indicates the negative consequences of following such policies.
Funny, there is never enough time or money to conduct experimental verifications to support costly and intrusive public policies. People are panicked into accepting the word of those who shout the loudest. Even when, over time, sufficient data was gathered and analyzed, those in power cherry-pick the studies that support their positions and always seem to claim more research is needed for a definitive conclusion.
Individuals believe the Fauci's of this world, not because they can independently verify findings or separate facts from statistical illusions, but because they have faith in the credibility of those presenting the prevailing narrative.
And, to the extent we put our faith in self-interested individuals, who face no consequences for being wrong or deceitful, we are so screwed.
“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell