RFK, Jr.'s book: The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health

versus

My article: "The REAL Problem with Dr. Fauci"

by John Spritzler

December 15, 2021

 

The URL of this article is https://www.pdrboston.org/rfk-jr-s-misleading-book-re-fauci

 

Both my article and RFK, Jr.'s book are very critical of Dr. Fauci. My article even calls Dr. Fauci "evil." But I think RFK, Jr.'s book is fundamentally misleading. Here's why.

 

First, RFK, Jr. makes scientifically false or misleading statements. Consider, for example, his sub-section (pg. 94-5) titled, "Vaccinated Are Equally Likely to Spread COVID." It reads as follows:

 

Beginning of extract:

 

Dr. Fauci's official theology makes "unvaccinated" America's national scapegoate, holding that they are more likely to spread disease and therefore should not be allowed to participate in civic life. The data across multiple sources and studies depict a very different reality.

 

In July 2021, the CDC found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected. This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

 

Another study from Indonesia supported this observation, noting that vaccinated individuals carry 251x the viral loads of Delta and other mutant variants than they did in the pre-vaccine era. Simply put, as Dr. Peter McCullough observed, "each vaccinated person is now a kind of Typhoid Mary for COVID, spreading concenrated viral loads of vaccine resistant mutants to vaccinated and unvaccinated alike." [104] CDC acknowledges that vaccinated individuals carry at least a many COVID germs in their noses as the unvaccinated. [105]

 

An October 2021 investigation by Israel's medical authorities of a COVID-19 outbreak in a highly vaccinated population of health workers at the Meir Medical Center in Sheba recorded 23.3 percent of patients and 10.3 percent of staff infected, despite a 96.2 percent vaccination rate among exposed individuals.[107] Moreover, the researchers recorded multiple transmissions between between two fully vaccinated individuals, both wearing surgical masks, and in one instance using full PPE, including N-95 mask, face shield, gown, and gloves. [108]

 

End of extract

 

Now let's look closely at RFK, Jr.'s assertions. First of all, his only reference that is an actual scientific journal article (as opposed to a newspaper or similar website article) is reference 104, which I examine closely below.

 

RFK, Jr. misleads his readers in the second paragraph by ignoring the KEY fact that while (as he says) vaccinated people WHEN INITIALLY INFECTED have as much virus (i.e., viral load which causes viral shedding which can infect others) as the amount of virus in unvaccinated people when initially infected, VACCINATED PEOPLE CLEAR THIS VIRUS MORE QUICKLY THAN UNVACCINATED PEOPLE AND ARE HENCE LESS LIKELY TO SPREAD INFECTION OVER TIME. Here is a recent scientific study that shows this: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102507 ; it reports

 

"Breakthrough infections among vaccine recipients were characterized by a faster clearance time than that among unvaccinated participants, with a mean of 5.5 days (95% credible interval, 4.6 to 6.5) and 7.5 days (95% credible interval, 6.8 to 8.2), respectively. The shorter clearance time led to a shorter overall duration of infection among vaccine recipients (Figure 1G)."

 

Here are further scientific journal articles that make this same point:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309921006484

 

"Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance. Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infectionshave peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts."

 

More scientific studies that bear on this question:

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666776221001277 reports

 

"Interpretation: These results suggest that BNT162b2 is moderately to highly effective in reducing infectivity, via preventing infection and through reducing viral shedding."

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7?origin=app

 

"The results show that infections occurring 12 d or longer after vaccination have significantly reduced viral loads at the time of testing, potentially affecting viral shedding and contagiousness as well as the severity of the disease13."

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.06.21251283v1

 

"Here, analyzing positive SARS-CoV-2 test results following inoculation with the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, we find that the viral load is reduced 4-fold for infections occurring 12-28 days after the first dose of vaccine. These reduced viral loads hint to lower infectiousness, further contributing to vaccine impact on virus spread."

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X21007350

 

"We estimate one dose of the Moderna vaccine reduces the potential for transmission by at least 61%."

 

Now let's look closely at RFK, Jr.'s 3rd paragraph. It reads: 

 

"Another study from Indonesia supported this observation, noting that vaccinated individuals carry 251x the viral loads of Delta and other mutant variants than they did in the pre-vaccine era. Simply put, as Dr. Peter McCullough observed, 'each vaccinated person is now a kind of Typhoid Mary for COVID, spreading concentrated viral loads of vaccine resistant mutants to vaccinated and unvaccinated alike'."

 

Again, RFK, Jr. is being misleading. His phrase "than they did in the pre-vaccine era" is meant to imply that the "251x the viral loads" means that being vaccinated is 251 times worse than being unvaccinated, i.e., that the "251x" is comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated people. But it is not! The "251x" is comparing infection with the Delta variant to infection with the original variant! Below is a link to RFK, Jr.'s reference #104 and what it actually says. And note, contrary to RFK, Jr. , it is a Vietnam study, not an Indonesian study.

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733.

 

"Viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020."

 

and

 

"Interpretation: Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people."

 

RFK, Jr. takes evidence that the Delta variant is much worse than the original variant, and uses it misleadingly to make his reader think that it is evidence that vaccination makes people much more contagious than not being vaccinated.

 

Now let's look closely at RFK, Jr.'s 4th paragraph. All it really says is that vaccination and PPE ("personal protective equipment," masks, etc.) doesn't totally 100% prevent people from getting infected with Covid-19. But the argument for getting vaccinated and using PPE (such as masks) never hinged on the absurd claim that these things were 100% protective; it hinged on the now verified fact that these things substantially reduce the likelihood of getting infected, duh.

 

What all of this shows is that RFK, Jr. plays fast and loose with his scientific assertions; he is not a credible source; he is seriously misleading; he is not trustworthy.

 

But the problem with RFK, Jr. is deeper.

 

By making a misleading, and easily refuted, criticism of Dr. Fauci's statements about the importance of vaccination and masks for Covid-19 protection, RFK, Jr. unfortunately stigmatizes ANY criticism of Fauci (such as mine!) as unworthy of serious consideration.

 

The REAL problem with Dr. Fauci is not that he says truthful things about vaccines and masks, but that he falsely frames these truths as the most important things related to reducing morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases, when in fact they are not.

 

As I show in enormous detail, based on scientific journal articles, in my article about Dr. Fauci (at https://www.pdrboston.org/the-real-problem-with-dr-fauci ), it is class inequality--the fact that the upper class treats us have-nots like dirt--that is overwhelmingly the cause of our otherwise unnecessary morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases, and while vaccinations are (sometimes) useful they are not the main thing we need to be as healthy as possible.

 

The reason Dr. Fauci does not speak THIS truth is because he does not want to displease the billionaire ruling plutocracy that has essentially bribed him to be silent about it with glory: over-the-top public praise (he's virtually always referred to as "Dr. Fauci, the nation's leading authority on infectious disease.") Dr. Fauci has made a deal with the devil, at our expense. The public health measures that we need to deal with Covid-19 are not implemented by the billionaire ruling plutocracy because it would decrease their big profits (as discussed at https://www.pdrboston.org/covid-vaccines-are-not-enough and at https://www.pdrboston.org/public-health-was-killed-by-big ) but Dr. Fauci never talks about this because of his deal with the devil.

 

And neither does RFK, Jr. talk about the root of the problem--class inequality and the fact that the U.S. has never been a democracy but rather a dictatorship of the rich from the days of the Founding Fathers. According to RFK, Jr;, our Constitution, if honored, would mean we had a genuine democracy. This is patently false, as I show at https://www.pdrboston.org/u-s-constitution-help-or-hindrance . The United States has been a dictatorship of the rich since the days of the Founding Fathers as I show at https://www.pdrboston.org/us-founding-fathers-enemy-of-the-pe . But RFK, Jr. waxes eloquent in praise of our Founding Fathers and their Constitution, writing on page 446:

 

"As we consider the unprecedented bludgeoning of our Constitution over the past two years, it's worth pausing to remember the smallpox epidemic that stalled Washington's army during the Revolution and the malaria contagion that culled the Army of Virginia. Though both alerted the Framers to the deadly and disruptive potential of infectious disease epidemics, the Framers nevertheless opted to include no pandemic exception to the United States Constitution."

 

RFK, Jr. has no problem with the class inequality that makes us much sicker than we otherwise would be. No! RFK, Jr.'s complaint is that the government is doing something to reduce the spread of Covid-19 (which RFK, Jr. falsely claims does not reduce it.)

 

RFK, Jr.'s appeal comes from the fact that he CORRECTLY points out that Big Pharma and Big Money and the government they control are about making Big Profits and will often give priority to that goal when it conflicts with making us healthier. This is true. But, as we saw at the beginning of this post, RFK, Jr. omits other highly relevant things that are also true. Here are two of them.

 

#1. Any ruling class, no matter how tyrannical, must--to avoid being overthrown--maintain at least a certain minimum of public support, even if only grudging support, and this requires that it act in a manner that persuades people that it is doing the best it can to reduce the harm from a threat to public health such as a pandemic. Therefore, just because bad people in power do things to mitigate the pandemic does not by itself mean that those things are bad, even if RFK, Jr says they are.

 

#2. The vast majority of physicians and others involved in medical research are well-intentioned and doing their best to discover good treatments for diseases. Yes, they are working in our capitalist system that is controlled by capitalists who only view this medical research as a means of making big profits, and these profit-driven capitalists therefore sometimes do things such as lie about clinical research data (this is, however, quite difficult to do without getting caught eventually) and (more commonly) prevent research from being done if it will not likely be profitable, such as a pharmaceutical company refusing to provide a drug for a clinical trial simply because its patent on the drug will expire too soon to make the trial financially profitable even if the drug were to turn out to be wildly efficacious for some horrible disease. What this means is that it is fine to be suspicious of a new treatment/drug, but one needs to look closely at the data about it, both the trustworthiness of the data and whether, if accurate, the data support the claims about the efficacy of the treatment/drug. It is foolish to declare that any and every drug sold by Big Pharma is no good simply because Big Pharma's goal is profit not our health. Big Pharma can't make profits over the long term by selling drugs that are not beneficial.