How does that justify shutting down science? Covid-19 was a new disease, and that provides a good reason to perform scientific testing. There were a series of issues for which Fauci asserted that he was sure of the answer, and he tried to prevent scientific research on those topics. Here are some examples:
1. Some scientists, including Jay Bhattacharya, said that covid-19 seemed to be much worse for the elderly. Fauci denied this, and he called people who believed it "fringe scientists".
2. Fauci thought that the spread of covid-19 would be so limited that contact tracing could be used. When others, such as Jay Bhattacharya and John Ioannidis, tested people to determine if Fauci was right, Fauci and the MSM denounced them.
3. Fauci asserted that cloth masks would be effective in preventing the spread of covid-19, and he blocked funding to test this. When a Danish study found that cloth masks were not effective, Fauci and the Biden Administration tried to block these results from being communicated on social media. Since that time, Wolensky and Jha have promoted several fraudulent studies on masking, which have been debunked by Vinay Prasad, Marty Makary, and others.
4. Fauci and Wolensky asserted that anyone who was vaccinated for covid-19 would not get covid-19. Information released via the Freedom of Information Act indicates that Fauci and Wolensky knew that this was not true, but they knew that the MSM would support their position.
5. Fauci, Wolensky, and Peter Hotez asserted that immunity acquired by getting covid-19 was less than one would get from being vaccinated. This was shown to be untrue by Monica Gandhi, Vinay Prasad, and Francois Balloux
I could provide many more examples. Fauci and his allies have tried to block scientific information to cover-up Fauci's incompetence and his politicizing of the pandemic.
I don't think anything justifies shutting down science.
That said, I would love to hear Jay and others like him in a public conversation with colleagues they respect, but who disagree.
I don't recall Dr. Fauci being quite as doctrinaire as you describe, but even if he was, it might speak to the dilemma of being a public health messenger in a polarized political environment.
Unless Fauci was in fact acting in bad faith (which is a hell of an accusation), what other options did he have, practically speaking? If I am the authority figure for the nation in a moment like that, I would think the worst thing I could do is be consistently vague or confusing, especially in an environment rife with people who think I am part of some vast conspiracy.
How does that justify shutting down science? Covid-19 was a new disease, and that provides a good reason to perform scientific testing. There were a series of issues for which Fauci asserted that he was sure of the answer, and he tried to prevent scientific research on those topics. Here are some examples:
1. Some scientists, including Jay Bhattacharya, said that covid-19 seemed to be much worse for the elderly. Fauci denied this, and he called people who believed it "fringe scientists".
2. Fauci thought that the spread of covid-19 would be so limited that contact tracing could be used. When others, such as Jay Bhattacharya and John Ioannidis, tested people to determine if Fauci was right, Fauci and the MSM denounced them.
3. Fauci asserted that cloth masks would be effective in preventing the spread of covid-19, and he blocked funding to test this. When a Danish study found that cloth masks were not effective, Fauci and the Biden Administration tried to block these results from being communicated on social media. Since that time, Wolensky and Jha have promoted several fraudulent studies on masking, which have been debunked by Vinay Prasad, Marty Makary, and others.
4. Fauci and Wolensky asserted that anyone who was vaccinated for covid-19 would not get covid-19. Information released via the Freedom of Information Act indicates that Fauci and Wolensky knew that this was not true, but they knew that the MSM would support their position.
5. Fauci, Wolensky, and Peter Hotez asserted that immunity acquired by getting covid-19 was less than one would get from being vaccinated. This was shown to be untrue by Monica Gandhi, Vinay Prasad, and Francois Balloux
I could provide many more examples. Fauci and his allies have tried to block scientific information to cover-up Fauci's incompetence and his politicizing of the pandemic.
I don't think anything justifies shutting down science.
That said, I would love to hear Jay and others like him in a public conversation with colleagues they respect, but who disagree.
I don't recall Dr. Fauci being quite as doctrinaire as you describe, but even if he was, it might speak to the dilemma of being a public health messenger in a polarized political environment.
Unless Fauci was in fact acting in bad faith (which is a hell of an accusation), what other options did he have, practically speaking? If I am the authority figure for the nation in a moment like that, I would think the worst thing I could do is be consistently vague or confusing, especially in an environment rife with people who think I am part of some vast conspiracy.