19 Comments

April 2020, thought he was a sane individual and felt our neighbours were in calm, good hands. ( I speak as an apolitical Canadian who knows when the US sneezes, we catch cold - happy to see our neighbours with good leadership). Today, I would be pleased if he was put on trial. There you have it.

Expand full comment

Excellent summary and the answer is clear. Why do you have difficulty saying it?

Given Fauci's long tenure at NIAID he knows where all the bodies are buried and he probably has "dirty pictures" of everybody.

I just started Scott Atlas' new book, "A Plague Upon Our House". He doesn't beat around the bush and is direct in his criticism of both Birx and Fauci. In addition to your 3 points, he has numerous others.

Expand full comment

I generally don’t support ageism, maybe because I am over 65 but I do support limits on bureaucratic health positions. Fauci has been in charge of NIAID, as you pointed out, for over 30 years. Despite his other foibles, it really is time for a leadership change, new blood at the helm. The pandemic has exposed a number of regulatory irregularities that have diminished faith in our public health system. To begin to rebuild trust the untrusted need to be replaced. That includes Fauci who for whatever reason is holding tight to his position even as Francis Collins exits the NIH. When a bureaucratic figure is so firmly fixed and empowered in their position it impacts other agency heads who interact with them. That includes Dr Rochelle Walensky who I believe lives in the Fauci overbearing shadow. We won’t see what she can and can’t do until Fauci is gone. So regardless of his age, his tenure is spent and he needs to resign gracefully.

Expand full comment

Factors 2 and 3 are the most important. First regarding the mask lies. Fauci seems to think that Americans need to be pressured into doing things for their own good. It's why we had decades of the lie about HIV transmission through heterosexual vaginal intercourse. Secondly, and most important is the fact that he was VERY close to the GoF research and lied about it. He certainly knew more than he let on and was able to divert attention from the probable cause of SARS-2 for MONTHS. It's completely unacceptable. In any sane world this guy would be gone and not still be the highest paid federal employee.

Expand full comment

If the goal was to create a reset for the massaging from our leading health institutions then having a new spokesperson, a fresh voice, would be ideal. But I don't think anybody really wants it. As much as the vaccine-hesitant are hated, I suspect some of those that are blaming them deep down know they need to have someone to blame. The divisiveness and general discord may be roiling at the pot's edge but in some ways it's working out just fine.

Expand full comment

I oppose the idea of firing people because they are old, as if the accumulated wisdom of elders can be thrown away like used Kleenex. But I do agree that 30 years in a position of power, authority and surrounded by comfortable echos of one's own outlook creates an elitist who is inevitably out of touch. He should gracefully resign with his gold watch and remain available as one of many voices available to his successor.

Expand full comment

He should move on and let someone fresh come up.

Expand full comment

It would be awesome if you could dedicate one of your podcasts to a public health Battle Royale, with some of the biggest names who've had the loudest megaphones -- many of whom (in my humble opinion) you've been appropriately critical of throughout this pandemic. On one side, the likes of Rochelle Wallensky, Fauci, etc and on the other -- you, Jay Bhattacharya, Hoeg, M, Gandhi, Baral, Z-Doc... It would serve to both entertain and inform.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Dr. Prasad.

One other specific point that's bothered me in Fauci's interviews is that I recall multiple occasions when he's used "infections" as a quantitative synonym for "confirmed cases". For example, references to "x thousand infections" per day, clearly matching the confirmed case count at a point in time.

We know, however, that identified "confirmed cases" are only some fraction of "actual infections". It's a tricky question precisely how much, as by definition the second number isn't know. And the ratio logically varies across time and geography, because of testing volumes and criteria.

It's not as big as any of the factors mentioned, but there's no explanation that casts Dr. Fauci in a good light as a public communicator on COVID issues. If he doesn't know the difference, then he's woefully uninformed about a simple reality that someone in his role needs to know. My best guess is that he does know the difference. That indicates, however, that he's far too careless in his language choices when discussing these topics.

Expand full comment

Fauci isn't there to be a good to the public, he is there to hold on to power. At 80, that would be the only reason to stay, given all of his misdeeds.

Expand full comment

"An easy solution would be to resign and pass the baton to someone with a fresh reputation."

There's unfortunately no way his replacement would be less politically motivated...

Expand full comment
founding

Doesn't 1) apply to Biden as well? In a much more important position at a much more pivotal time at the Patricia Knodle van? (His words not mine:) )

Expand full comment

There are always good reasons for mandatory retirement rules. Dr Fauci is well past his prime. His hip-shot comments do not serve the position well. Critical data often fall to entrenched positions; few politicians can admit error.

Expand full comment