Follow The Politics

The American Thinker this morning has two articles that tie together a number of aspects of Fauci and, of course, his emails that have come under repeated discussion here.

Let's start with Clarice Feldman's  The End of the Wuhan Scamarama.

One aspect of Fauci the person that I've hammered at--as have various commenters--is simply this. While Fauci has for decades occupied high paying government positions for which a relevant science degree, if not exactly necessary, would be very helpful, he is in fact NOT a scientist (no matter what Wikipedia's hagiographical entry tries to suggest). Fauci is no more than an MD--who is said to have "an interest" in immunology. Great. I have an interest in nuclear physics. Unlike most of the physicians who have weighed in on Covid and the Covid regime, in the decades since gaining his MD Fauci has done nothing in the academic field to enhance his resume. Certainly not in terms of advanced degrees in any scientific field that would be in any way relevant to Covid, its treatment, its vaccines. He's a bureaucrat or, if you want to be charitable, an administrator.

With that in mind, Feldman cites Dr. Jeffrey Satinover who notes several remarkable features that can be gleaned from Fauci's emails (sorry, no link available):

1. Almost ALL of the emails are from others to Fauci with his reply. There are very few, if any (I will have to review) initiated by him. It is very unlikely this represents his full correspondence using his official NIH address.

2. The rough per-day number of emails in Jan and Feb, then May, greatly exceeds March and April. 

3. A very large proportion of text with what looks to me likely to be scientific detail, in others’ comments to Fauci, has been blocked [redacted, likely by Fauci himself]. 

4. The largest proportion consists of requests to Fauci to speak either at scientific conferences or on major media television programs. Strikingly:

(a) Fauci refuses almost every invite in a medical or scientific setting

(b) Fauci accepts almost every invite to go on TV

5. The most striking feature by far, so far, is this: Fauci’s responses are utterly devoid of either scientific curiosity or depth. He shows no evidence in these pages at least, of anything but the most superficial familiarity with viral illnesses. Whenever someone proposes a helpful idea, he hands it off to a deputy to respond. He is temperate to the point of vacuity.

There's a man who knows his own limitations! The only question is, What's he doing at the top of NIAID at this critical juncture in time?

Consider: Fauci's CV indicates a mediocre background in any scientific disciplines that would be relevant to his position. Nor has his academic background been upgraded in any identifiably significant respect for several decades. He hasn't even practiced medicine during those years. Understandably, he's out of his depth in discussing technical matters concerning virology--as recognized experts have pointedly noted--and so avoids exhibiting his lack of knowledge whenever possible. He prefers the adulation of MSNBC talking heads, while hypocritically presenting himself as the face of Science. 

Satinover is almost certainly correct that the redactions of Fauci's emails are designed to conceal much of the above. And there may be more. Feldman also cites Paula Boyard's view that what Fauci's emails reveal is "very bad", and likely to be followed by worse. The Left is distancing itself from Fauci, major critical articles are appearing with damaging revelations (Nicholas Wade, Vanity Fair, etc.), and we now know some of the reasons why--beginning with word of a high level Chinese defector spilling the Covid beans.

William Sullivan expands on some aspects of the retreat from Fauci in The Fall of St. Fauci.

Last week we noted two interesting and almost certainly related phenomena. First, Fauci's book was basically canceled by the two biggest online sellers: Amazon (which is tightly connected to the political Left) and Barnes and Noble. Second, the current occupants of the White House nevertheless are holding fire with regard to Fauci. What's going on with what look like mixed signals?

Sullivan first notes the unmistakable significance of Amazon's canceling of Fauci's book:

The first clue is the obvious corporate and media separation from Dr. Fauci.  Again, Amazon and Barnes & Noble aren't separating themselves due to a moral objection to his book's content, as it seemed that Amazon clearly did when it delisted When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment. That decision was made by to advance the globo-corporate technocrats' quest to destroy what is traditional in order to replace it with what is radically "progressive." This decision on Fauci's book was made with no other purpose than to minimize Fauci's exposure by giving his book fewer avenues to market.

When the two largest book retailers in America don't bring a book to market, fewer of those books are sold, and that book will receive less public attention.  We would recognize this effort as openly propagandistic toward minimizing exposure of the book, and its author, if these two book-retailing giants were to delist, say, an upcoming book from Donald Trump on his lessons on leadership and how to politically move forward beyond the pandemic.  Why would we not recognize it as such when these influential book-dealers do the same to Dr. Fauci?

The bread crumbs here aren't hard to follow.  The political surrogate for the corporate technocracy in America, here represented by Amazon, is the Democratic Party. 

Therefore the handwriting is on the wall: Amazon, like any surrogate, is doing the bidding of its political masters.

Why then does Fauci remain in his position, for the time being?

For the same reason, Sullivan explains, that Trump didn't fire Fauci--although, we're now learning, he wanted to. The reason is simply that presidents are not able to fire just anyone who happens to work for the government. Thus, the "less than full throated" support accorded to Fauci by Dem politicians turns out to be a misdirection play. The slide is being greased, but discretely:

This leads to the second clue that something big is happening that bodes poorly for Fauci.   Democratic figures are going out of their way to send signals that they will not immediately be following suit in ditching Fauci.

This is a red herring meant to imply a separation of impulses between the corporate left and the political left.  We should not be fooled. 

Jen Psaki's effort to do this was the most obvious to me.  ...  When asked if she "could imagine any circumstance" where Biden would fire him, she simply replied "no."

"Well, that settles that," we're supposed to think. But here's the thing. Biden, under federal law, technically can't fire Fauci.  In fact, this was all discussed in great detail last year with regard to whether Trump could fire him, as he had clearly fallen out of favor with our president. As Paul LeBlanc wrote at CNN last year, the "President does have the power to sideline Fauci, keeping him away from press and media interviews," but he "doesn't have the power to directly fire" him.

Psaki's defense of Fauci's emails was anything but full-throated, and she simply stated a fact that happens to be in Democrats' favor right now.  Firing Fauci is not possible.  ...

So, in sum, if Amazon and Barnes & Noble delisting Fauci's book has the effect of minimizing his ongoing exposure, and if the administration can quietly sideline him as revelations continue to drop, there is obvious benefit to the political left.

Who was it who said Fauci would be gone by August? Isn't that the down time in the news cycle? That's probably part of the plan--to minimize political damage. The question remains: How much more will be revealed? That may be out of the Dems control at this point. Will we be learning more about Fauci's communications with disgraced multi-billionaire Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg--which Tucker Carlson (among others) has pointedly noted? Consider. At the very time that Fauci was communicating with Zuckerberg regarding Covid--because, of course the director of NIAID consults closely with the CEO of a social media corporation--Zuckerberg was spending mega-millions of dollars on Dem get out the vote efforts of dubious legality. There could be a story there.