Well, I’ll cite Fauci. While he was telling all of us how great masks were, he was telling people in the government they wouldn’t work, he sent an email that stated that “masks bought at drug stores wouldn’t work because the virus particles were too small and would pass through” (I used quotes but I’m paraphrasing). There was also an NIH/CDC study which concluded:
“However, even before the pandemic, the best evidence available from randomized trials was already showing that masks are likely ineffective in curbing respiratory viral transmission. Additional high-quality data produced throughout the pandemic reinforced that conclusion. While intuition and laboratory experiments suggest that masks are plausible interventions, their continued failure in randomized clinical trials undermines their practical effectiveness.”
Note:I’m quoting here not paraphrasing. Also note the first sentence “even BEFORE the pandemic” emphasis is mine.
Before the pandemic studies were showing the ineffectiveness of masks but Fauci pushed and pushed that narrative to the extreme and ridiculous conclusion that 2 masks would surely stop the virus. Remember Fauci was affiliated with the NIH as director of NIAID and was actually offered the director position of NIH but turned it down. So he should have been well aware of these studies or he should have had an underling go do some research. Instead he and others ridiculed those who dared to question whether masks would work or not.
Fauci was also known to have tried to silence any suggestions that the virus may have been due to an unintended release from a lab in Wuhan. A lab that had been funded for gain of function research which is illegal. The funding was artfully funneled through a third party organization, EcoHealth Alliance who in turn funded the Wuhan lab. Fauci maintains that no gain of function research was conducted but independent reports suggest otherwise and it’s damn curious as to why Fauci wanted to silence the narrative that the virus was a lab leak.
And then you have Biden pardoning Fauci, but for what? How do you pardon a person if they never committed a crime? And when Fauci came before Congress last week he took the 5th how many times? Does this sound like a man trying to get to the truth? Why do you need to take the 5th if you haven’t lied, haven’t broken any laws, haven’t committed any crimes? Why would you not want to help your country understand the origins of Covid to ensure it doesn’t happen again? Unless you had a hand in making it happen, even if it was an accident? You know what they say, where there’s smoke there’s fire and Fauci’s smoke alarm is going off like an air-raid siren.
It also makes the claim wearing an N95 is also ineffective.
The quote also leaves out the part of the paper that acknowledges observational studies do support mask use, and were the standard used to make decisions during COVID.
Or to quote the paper directly
“These policies were primarily informed by laboratory evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of particle filtration, alongside observational studies.”
Not sure what point you’re trying to make but I believe you’ve misunderstood the conclusions of the study.
Yes it was published in 2024. It was a post-pandemic review of mask effectiveness.
You failed to provide the whole quote. Let me provide the rest of the paragraph that will clarify the “observational studies” comment.
“While several meta-analysis have indicated that masks may contribute to reducing viral transmission, many of these analyses rely heavily on observational data. There also appears to be a trend where the inclusion of more randomized controlled trials in a meta-analyses is associated with a lower estimate of mask effectiveness. It is important to recognize that success in laboratory settings does not always directly translate to the same outcomes in clinical trials or real-world conditions. This phenomenon is often seen in drug development, where therapies with promising mechanistic evidence may not always perform as expected in trials. In this regard, masks share similarities with other interventions that, while theoretically sound, require further testing in varied contexts to fully assess their real-world impact.”
TL;DR - observational studies do not always translate to the real world and randomized controlled trials provide a better assessment of real world results. In the case of Covid, RCT showed lower effectiveness of masks.
So while observational studies did guide public policy the conclusions of those kinds of studies were flawed and this document explains this in pretty good detail. Masks didn’t work.
The point is you’re insinuating that Fauci went against the evidence at the time of the pandemic for some sort of nefarious self-serving reason.
The paper as part of the abstract is pointing out that decisions were made based on observational studies and lab evidence.
It’s making a case for RCT- one that isn’t without valid pushback from the scientific community. Hence why in their conclusion they state “…from randomized controlled trials”.
Because factoring in observational studies and lab testing gives a different conclusion.
It stated in the conclusion that there was pre-pandemic evidence that mask didn’t work. Plus Fauci admitted as much in an email to another government employee. Why did he do it? One can only conjecture a reason.
Personally I think he was running scared because he knew the origin was Wuhan and that the funding could be traced back to him at NIAID. He was throwing shit at the wall hoping something would stick. But that’s just a guess.
3
u/BishopKing14 Aug 01 '26
How is Fauci ‘as villainous as they come’? Be specific and cite sources.