A million Americans died from COVID-19, marking one of the darkest chapters in our nation’s history. Four years later, more than 10 million Americans are still suffering from long COVID. We continue to fight for accountability.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, in his role as chief medical adviser to the president, insisted upon mask and vaccine mandates, lockdowns, and overstated vaccine efficacy, often disregarding the public’s and private medical professional’s ability to assess the facts.
Many lessons must be learned from Dr. Fauci’s tenure, highlighting the need for supervision and ethical leadership. As a physician, I believe in informing patients of the truth and collaborating on plans.
This week, he will testify before the House of Representatives. We must demand answers for the numerous unresolved issues related to his potential role in the origins of COVID-19, and the subsequent alleged cover-up. Here are several questions I hope are asked:
After learning of the possibility of a lab leak from respected scientists, did Dr. Fauci consult the appropriate government agencies at the National Biosurveillance Integration Center, National Center for Medical Intelligence, and Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, all stacked with experts about the risky research at the unsafe Wuhan Institute of Virology? Evidence indicates he consulted private sector scientists with significant conflicts of interest, as they depended on his research funds. Dr. Fauci has never conceded to seeking advice from the correct government channels. Why?
He knew the Chinese military was involved in all research at Wuhan laboratories, including that China’s military ran a bioweapons program at the Wuhan Institute of Virology labs. Yet Dr. Fauci continued to use taxpayer money to fund the research projects in Wuhan.
When confronted about this, Dr. Fauci claimed ignorance, although it was his responsibility to ensure compliance with these grants. This lack of oversight highlights the immediate need for increased accountability at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the necessity for its own inspector general.
When following the evidence, Dr. Fauci often sought counsel from questionable advisers and scientists with clear conflicts of interest.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act mandates that advice given to the federal government by advisory committees be objective, transparent, and publicly accessible. However, email records show that Dr. Fauci consulted his close network of private scientists, some of whom financially benefited from the NIH grants that Dr. Fauci oversees, and some in that group were waiting on a grant approval worth up to $9 million.
Importantly, after that meeting, the Fauci-led group published the “proximal origin” theory, concluding that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a ”natural virus.” Once the theory was published, Dr. Fauci seemingly embarked on a mass media cover-up and touted that opinion piece that he orchestrated as scientific fact, even referencing it from the White House podium.
Dr. Fauci should be asked to explain how the attribution of potential intentional pathogen deployment (which he was tasked to oversee and manage) is assessed and how the action plan is developed and implemented. If he can’t adequately answer these questions when asked, he should return the salary and related pension immediately.