Fauci: Good Doctor or Fraud?

I became critical of Dr. Anthony Fauci about a month into the pandemic in a blog post titled "Two-Faced Fauci?".

In that post I summarized troubling examples of Fauci that belied his public persona as the objective, non-political medical-trained scientist giving us straightforward unvarnished truth.

I followed up with another blog post about Fauci in July titled "Does The Substance Match The Style" after Fauci agreed to a cover story in InStyle magazine that was nothing more than a puff piece extolling how great Fauci was. 

He was "The Good Doctor".

I had a very wise boss and mentor who advised me early in my career to always be on the look out for what he referred to as "the articulate incompetent".

These are the people who look good and sound great. They usually attended the best schools and know how to ingratiate themselves to the people who count. However, when you really considered what they  said or did, there was nothing there. 

In the corporate world these people could quickly impress others and be persuasive in their presentations. However, there was no substance to back up the style. This fact eluded most people and articulate incompetents could inflict major damage on an organization because they had people doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons.

Anthony Fauci seems to me to be an articulate incompetent.

On the other hand, you have the inarticulate competent.

This is a person who may lack polish and who is not traveling in the right social circles in the organization. They may be rough around the edges and might say and do things that make others uncomfortable from time to time. They undoubtedly did not get an advanced degree from the "right" school. Their experience usually centers around common sense and real world experience. People tend to discount what they say due to how they say it and how they act. What they lack in style they make up in substance when all is said and done.

Donald Trump might be considered an inarticulate competent.

In the last few days we are finding a whole lot more about Dr. Fauci and what he was doing behind the scenes during the beginning stages of the pandemic thanks to a FOIA release of his emails that became public this week.

Interestingly, the emails seem to answer my questions about whether there were two faces of Fauci.

For example, this email chain apparently shows that Fauci seems to be gravely concerned about revelations that the virus may have been man-made and have come from a lab in Wuhan, China.

Fauci received this email that was sent at 10;32pm on January 31, 2020 from Scripps virus researcher Kristian Anderson telling Fauci that the virus "genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory" and "some of the features (potentially) look engineered".

Source: https://twitter.com/Surabees/status/1400082639453831171/photo/2

This would clearly be troubling news for Fauci in that he had been involved in funding that went to the Wuhan lab.

It would be even more troubling if it was "gain of function" research that meant that virologists were doing work to create a lethal virus in the lab and it escaped or was purposely released by the Chinese when the money trail leads back to Fauci.

Note this email that same night (12:29am) that was sent to Hugh Auchincloss who was Fauci's second in command at the NIAID. Note that it references an attachment involving "gain of function".

Fauci was clearly burning the midnight oil that night.

Why?

Source: https://twitter.com/justin_hart/status/1399928120447098886/photo/1

This is apparently the pdf article that Fauci attached to the email which was co-authored by the head of the Wuhan lab doing the work on bat viruses (Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi) and UNC-Chapel Hill researcher Ralph Baric who was doing most of the gain of function research on these viruses in the United States until it was shut down in 2013 because it was deemed too dangerous. I first referenced the work of Baric in these pages on January 26, 2020.

Note the disclaimer that was added to this abstract in March, 2020 that there was no evidence that Covid-19 was engineered.

Fauci repeated this narrative that there was no evidence the virus came from the Wuhan lab. A narrative that very possibly that he had a hand in creating.

Fauci stated repeatedly in April and May, 2020 there was "no evidence" that Covid came from the Wuhan lab.

Fauci even contradicted the President of the United States when he was standing right beside him in April, 2020 after Donald Trump suggested that it might have come from the Chinese lab.

No evidence?

What about that email from Kristian Anderson to Fauci in January?

I would suggest anyone interested in the question of whether the virus mutated naturally from bats to humans, was bio-engineered, or escaped from that Wuhan lab somehow, should read this Vanity Fair article by Katherine Eban. It is LONG (11,000 words) but well worth the read.

The full truth is still not known.

However, the article seems to make clear that there was a concerted effort within the United States government bureaucracy to see to it that no one should even look for the truth.

Was Dr. Fauci involved in that effort? I don't know.

However, it is clear that he has been far from forthcoming on this subject as well as many others.

For example, here is Dr. Fauci corresponding with actress Morgan Fairchild (interesting he has time for this) on February 27, 2020 that there is nothing to be done right now to help the effort to fight the pandemic because the risk is low, there are few cases in the U.S. and the cases are well isolated.

Source: https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1400153499183296521/photo/1

I found this email particularly interesting because in April Fauci was on various media outlets claiming that he had advised President Trump to shutdown the country the third week of February. He claimed Trump did not listen to him or other top officials.

This is from an article on April 12, 2020 reporting on Fauci's appearance with CNN's Jake Tapper on its Sunday show, State of the Union.

Do you find it a little inconsistent that Fauci is telling Morgan Fairchild on February 27, 2020 that the risk is low, and since there are few cases, there is nothing that needs to be done right now. However, he later told us that at the same time he was supposedly pounding on Trump's desk to shutdown the country?

Two-faced? You decide.

One final interesting email is one that Fauci wrote to Sylvia Burwell on February 5, 2020. Burwell was Secretary of HHS under Obama and is currently President of American University in D.C.

 

It appears that Burwell had inquired of Fauci whether should should wear a mask for a trip she was about to embark on.

Notice Fauci's response.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out the virus, which is small enough to pass through the material."

Source: https://twitter.com/thechrisbuskirk/status/1400192844124524546/photo/1

Fauci also received an email from a staffer on March 31 summarizing the latest science on the effectiveness of mask usage in combating a virus in a community setting.

He was told that nine very diverse RCT's (the gold standard in science research according to Fauci) led to one bottom line result.

No difference in ILI/URI or flu rates when masks are used.

Source: https://twitter.com/andrewbostom/status/1400424950981447686/photo/1

Despite this, on April 3, 2020 (3 days after receiving the latest science on face masks) Fauci told the American people they should wear face masks to stifle the spread of Covid!

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-dr-fauci-wants-you-to-know-about-face-masks-and-staying-home-as-virus-spreads

Of course, he later told everyone to wear two masks.

What is Fauci saying now about this?

He always likes to defend himself by saying that "the science changed."

It changed in 3 days?

Even today Fauci is saying that students in communities with lower rates of vaccination may have to wear masks in the Fall.

It remains to be seen what type of "science" he is relying on to say this?

From the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic there have been a total of 309 deaths in the 0-17 age group.

During the same time period, there were 45,513 deaths for these ages for all causes.

There are approximately 80 million children in the USA under the age of 18.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#AgeAndSex

Does Fauci even consider the risk/benefit equation in all of this?

Regarding the masks? Regarding vaccinating children?

Fauci even admitted recently that requiring students to get vaccinated to attend school was debatable.

Fauci has continually been lauded by the media for his leadership during Covid.

Trump was continually castigated.

A year later, who had a better perspective on Covid?

You now can fully see the very real risks of following an "Articulate Incompetent".

I wrote this in that April 12, 2020 blog post about Fauci and my suspicions about his actions.

What this looks like to me is another life-long government bureaucrat trying to cover his rear end as the advice and the expert opinions he shared look increasingly suspect.

As this crisis passes and people look for those to cast blame, I believe that the public health bureaucrats should be first on the list.

One of the great tragedies of Donald Trump not serving another term is that I am positive that Tony Fauci would have been fired before Inauguration Day.

That is truly unfortunate.

However, the end of Fauci's power and influence looks to me to be nearing an end.

I thought that before the email release. I believe it more today.

It cannot come soon enough.

Is Liberalism A Mental Disorder?

In looking at the proposals and policy positions of hard core liberals I find it hard to understand what they are thinking.

In so many ways it seems that there is no connection to reality.

Defunding the police is going to make us safer?

Paying people not to work is good for them and our society?

Almost all problems in the United States are the result of white privilege?

We should allow biological males to compete with females in sporting events based on how they "identify" themselves rather than based on the genetic material in their bodies?

Attempting to ban the most efficient and cost-effective energy sources (the sources of which the United States leads the world) based on unproven models and theories about global warming?

Prosecuting and penalizing people for harming sea turtle eggs but arguing that we need to allow abortions up to and through the birth of a human being?

Welcoming hordes of illegal aliens along our southern border but doing nothing for people who risked their lives to support our troops in Afghanistan?

Scott Adams says that Democrats are human motivation deniers.

That is one way to look at it.

There is a big difference between theory and reality when it comes to human beings.

Most liberal ideas are well meaning and well intentioned. In a theoretical laboratory these ideas make a lot of sense.  I think that is why so many academics are liberal. The ideas make such great sense in the classroom or a textbook. The world would be such a great place if they did work. 

Unfortunately, in the real world these ideas must face reality. A reality where human beings make decisions based on incentives or disincentives relative to their own self-interest.  A reality where unintended consequences often have much greater effects than the intended consequences.

Radio commentator Michael Savage wrote a book titled "Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder" about 15 years ago.

His thesis is that the difference between what one believes and what reality and nature are is a measure of mental illness.

For example, consider the phenomenon of white millennial women dominating the Black Lives Matter protests a year ago and their avid support of defunding the police that I wrote about last year. 

How many young, white women do you see in this picture supporting BLM's calls to defund the police?

How many Blacks do you see in that picture?

This is what I wrote on all of this last July.

The biggest mystery to me regarding white millennial women who are supporting the Black Lives Matter movement so fervently is trying to figure out how they can be in favor of "Defunding the Police". 

Who do these young women think is going to bear the highest cost in our society if we defund the police? Does it cross their mind that a reduction in police presence might negatively affect them?

 

That is an example of a huge  difference in "beliefs" and "reality" that Savage points to in questioning mental fitness.

How do you explain it?

I used to think that Savage was merely using hyperbole when he compared liberalism with mental illness. It seemed a little bit over the top. I believed he was just doing it to get ratings and sell books.

The events of recent years has made me start to question whether there might be some truth in what he says.

This was reinforced recently with this survey from Pew Research that is interesting to consider.

That is a pretty big difference between those who consider themselves liberal versus those who identify as conservatives when it comes to a medical opinion of their mental health condition.

More troubling was the breakdown of this survey of young women under age 30.

56% of white liberal women aged 18-29 have been told they have a mental condition by a doctor or other healthcare provider.

The entire events of last summer make more sense when you see this survey data.

It should be noted that this survey was done in March, 2020 before BLM was even in the headlines.

Scott Adams asks another interesting question on Twitter.

All of this is not to say that there aren't Conservatives who have mental illness challenges. Look no further than those who are convinced that Joe Biden is in Hollywood acting as if he were President because he has been locked out of The White House and the Pentagon by the military. 

You also have those on the Right who believe that Trump is going to be miraculously reinstalled as President sometime this summer based on some far-fetched conspiracy theory.

There could not be a wider gulf between beliefs and reality here as well.

Psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter, Jr., M.D. has written a book on the subject that attempts to answer the questions of how the liberal mind works with an in-depth examination of the psychological reasons behind it all.

I haven't read the book but it offers an interesting perspective that might be worth considering from someone who has treated mental disorders for over 40 years.

This is an excerpt from the book cover.

Is liberalism a mental disorder?

I don't know.

The fact that this question has even been asked is troubling in itself.

Of course, the more we see support for proposals that make no rational sense and do nothing to advance the best interests of our society, our security, our safety, our economy, our nation, our families, or our individual freedoms, the more rational it becomes to ask the question.

This and That

 A few "this and that" items that I came across in my reading and research over the last week or so.

U.S. Healthcare Spending

Do you recall that initially the entire justification to lockdown the economy in the spring of 2020 was to prevent our hospital system from being overwhelmed?

I guess we succeeded.

Annual spending for healthcare in 2020 actually declined 2% compared to 2019. It was the first decline in healthcare spending since 1960 when the government first started tracking it. That undoubtedly means that it was the first time it has ever occurred.

Hospital spending for the year was down 7%.

Dental services spending was down 20%.

Healthcare spending declines in the middle of what was termed the worst pandemic in the world in 100 years?

Who would have ever believed it possible?

Dr. Tony Fauci- So Wrong About So Much

You may recall that it was over a year ago that Dr. Tony Fauci disputed President Trump's suggestion that he had seen credible intelligence to suggest that Covid-19 had its origins in the Wuhan, China virology laboratory.

In March of this year Fauci disputed former CDC Robert Redfield when he stated that he also believed the virus originated in the Wuhan lab.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, a top adviser to President Biden on the coronavirus pandemic, said he didn’t believe that the coronavirus originated in a Chinese laboratory for studying pathogens, appearing to contradict controversial remarks made earlier in the day by the former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Robert Redfield.

It was just two weeks ago that Fauci testified before a Senate committee that the NIH had not provided any type of funding to the Chinese lab to fund "gain of function" research that had been banned in the United States because it was deemed too dangerous.

During a Senate hearing on the U.S. pandemic response, Paul pressed Fauci about whether the NIH had provided funding to the Wuhan Virology Institute to fund “gain of function” research, a risky type of research that involves making pathogens more infectious and deadly. 

"With all due respect, you are entirely, completely incorrect,” Fauci snapped back, adding the NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

Fauci is saying totally different things on both subjects today.

He is now saying that he is not convinced that Covid-19 developed naturally outside the Wuhan lab and supports a full investigation of what went on in China.

Fauci has turned 180 degrees on the subject.

Ironically, he is now at the same place that President Donald Trump was at over a year ago when Fauci and the mainstream media claimed that what Trump was saying about the origins of the virus was "baseless".

Fauci also admitted in further testimony to a Senate committee this week that the NIH had indeed funded research into the Wuhan lab to study the transmission of coronaviruses from bats to humans to better understand the SARS-CoV-1 epidemic in the early 2000s.

Fauci, the chief medical advisor to the White House, told lawmakers Tuesday that the National Institutes of Health funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology through the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance with $600,000 over a period of five years. Funding to the nonprofit was eventually halted by the NIH. 

 

Fauci seems to want us to believe there is a distinction between funding the Wuhan lab (run by the Communist Chinese Party) and funding gain of function research there. Dr. Fauci is clearly a very trusting man.

Fauci has proven to be wrong more than he is right. There also exists substantial questions about his truthfulness in almost everything he has done.

One of the things I was sure of was that a re-elected President Trump would have made sure that Dr. Fauci would not have served the U.S. government in any capacity during a second Trump term.

My guess is that Fauci will likely not last much longer in the Biden administration.

He is no longer useful to them and quickly is becoming a liability. 

I would expect he will "retire" before the summer is out after what will be termed his "heroic and successful efforts" to fight the pandemic.

Unfortunately for the country, it will be at least a year too late.

Vaccines or Not? 

Seeing the rapidly declining number of Covid cases in the United States, UK and Israel it is easy to look at the high vaccination rates in these countries and declare the vaccines responsible.

Vaccinations.

Cases.

However, compare the UK case drop with that of these other European countries all of which have vaccinated less than 10% of their population.

The case curves are almost identical.

Compare Israel with the cases in Palestine which has vaccinated just 6% of its population.

How much are the decrease in Covid cases attributable to the vaccines and how much relates to seasonality and natural herd immunity?

Defund the Police?

Many Democrat politicians have stated that we need to defund the police.

One is Atlanta councilman Antonio Brown who also wants to be the city's mayor.

Earlier this year Brown voted for an ordinance to withhold $73 million from the Atlanta police department in order to force a plan to reinvent the city's culture of policing.

Source: New York Post

What happened to Councilman Brown this week?

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-defund-the-police-backer-has-car-stolen-by-kids-in-broad-daylight-reports

Councilman Antonio Brown was attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony at an event in northeast Atlanta around noon when at least four kids jumped into his car and took off, FOX 5 of Atlanta reported. 

"You don’t immediately think, ‘Oh, these kids are going to steal my car,’" Brown said, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 

Brown said the thieves jumped in his vehicle Wednesday after he got out to speak with community leader Ben Norman. He noted his white Mercedes-Benz coupe has keyless push-to-start ignition and he failed to realize it had been started, reports said. 

The councilman described the kids as being between ages 6 and 12, FOX 5 reported. 

What did Councilman Brown do?

He called the police.

In the end he got his Mercedes back. However, he is not planning to press charges.

Brown doesn't plan on filing charges against the kids, who he says acted out of desperation, Atlanta's WSB-TV reported.

"This is a generational poverty issue. These kids, it’s 12:30 in the afternoon. Why aren’t they in school? Why aren’t we enforcing systems to ensure that if they are not in school, they’re in recreational centers?" he said.

Indeed, why aren't they in school? Who is responsible for that?

Desperation? Perhaps you could make that case with a basic necessity. However, how does that compute with 6-12 year old kids stealing a luxury Mercedes-Benz coupe at 1230pm on a school day?

This story says so much about things that are so wrong right now.

The State of Education

From the beginning of the Covid pandemic and school closures I have expressed my concern as to what this was going to do to those children who were already behind in educational skills. 

These children were already seriously behind before we stopped them from attending in-person classes. 

Did these children even have a laptop and internet connection to attend school?

Did they have any type of parental support at home to supervise and support their online learning?

This tweet from Black education activist Denisha Merriweather puts the issue in perspective as she cites assessment results for Black students before the pandemic.

The NAEP stands for the National Assessment for Educational Progress.

Here is some additional data I found from the National School Boards Association on the percentage of students in the 8th grade who are considered to be proficient in various academic subjects.

Source: https://nsba.org/Perspectives/2020/black-students-condition-education

These were the numbers when these kids were in school.

What do you think the educational assessment scores look like for 2020-2021?

Is anyone even talking about the most important factor underlying all of this?

Instead of calling for defunding the police who is speaking out about the fact that 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers and we need more children living in two-parent households?

Bueller?

Brown?

Biden?

Anyone?

Inflation In Our Future?

Many people in the United States have not experienced significant, sustained, across the board inflation.

It has been 40 years since we last saw double-digit annual inflation. For most of the last 30 years consumer prices have averaged about 2.5% per year.

Inflation, consumer prices in the United States

Is this about to change?

There are troubling signs on the horizon.

Check out this comparison of prices on selected items over the last year.

Source: https://twitter.com/chrisbergpov/status/1396620808039063553/photo/1

Here is a chart showing lumber prices.

Here is the graph showing used car prices.

Source: https://twitter.com/jsblokland/status/1396577680783519746/photo/1

The Federal Reserve believes that the price increases are "transitory" and are not of immediate concern.

Many economic analysts are not as certain that is the case.

The Federal Reserve seems to be relying on the experience of the last 20 years which has seen deflationary pressures dominate.

This is largely a function of the globalization of the economy and, in particular, the tremendous influence that China has had since it joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 and started exporting low-priced goods to the rest of the world.

This had a deflationary effect on scores of manufactured goods.

You can see the effect when you break down consumer inflation in the United States between services (excluding energy) and core goods.

Services inflation (excluding energy)  within the CPI index has averaged 2.8% per year over the 20 years leading up to Covid. This includes items such as rent, healthcare, college tuition, insurance and entertainment.

Core goods, which includes items such as food, household goods, clothing, toys and the like averaged 0% in inflation over those 20 years.

Do you see the difference? Low labor costs in China and many other countries around the world kept core goods inflation low. The same was not true with services that were more dependent on labor and other costs in the United States.

This is another graph that I have used in the past that makes the point with more specificity. This graph has inflation data only through 2016 but it clearly shows the differences we have seen between services and core goods inflation over the last 20 years.

Source: https://www.bourbonfm.com/blog/price-changes-selected-consumer-goods-and-services-1996

You might look at the chart above and wonder how can it show that cars have only increased in price by 2.1% over the last 20 years?

This is due to the fact that the inflation index adjusts for new features and improvements that have been added to the price of the car. This is not price inflation. In effect, you are getting a better car than you did 20 years ago. Features such as air bags, back up cameras. better fuel efficiency etc. were not features you got 20 years ago.

The same goes for tv's. The flat screen television of today is a far cry from what you got 20 years ago.

There is no question that global economic forces over the last two decades have had a huge deflationary effect that ordinarily would have been expected to continue. The Federal Reserve believes that is still the long term trend.

If we are embarking on a longer term inflationary cycle it is clear that we have done it to ourselves with misguided government and fiscal policy.

For example, look at this chart that shows how much money has been put in the pockets of Americans with Covid stimulus policies.

In March and April, one-third of all income that went into the pockets of Americans came from government transfers.

A lot of that money was not spent. It was put into savings. That money is now on the sidelines and could fuel demand-driven inflation at some point. 

We may already be seeing the effects of that money in the recent increase in housing prices and in stock market prices.

Of course, underlying all of this has been the easy money policies of the Federal Reserve.

This is a chart of the M2 money supply over the last three years.

None of what has been done would have been possible without the money printing done by the Fed.

Unites States Money Supply, M2

We will see what the future brings.

If inflation is in our future it will have devastating effects on those at the bottom of the economic ladder and senior citizens in particular.

Of course, these are the same people that our politicians always assure us that they are committed to protecting first and foremost.

Those of us who lived through the inflationary period in the late 1970's know full well the effects that inflation can have.

We also know the extreme monetary measures that were required to wring inflation out of the economy in the early 1980's.

How does an 18% mortgage rate sound?

There is a reason that James Madison warned us in Federalist Papers #10 about what he called "Improper or Wicked Projects" that dangerous factions might promote at various times and places in our nation.

What was the first "Improper and Wicked Project" that Madison said we should be worried about?

1. A rage for paper money

The rage is here and almost no politicians are pushing back against it in Washington or anywhere else.

What was second on the list?

2. A rage for the abolition of debts.

How often do we hear that student debt should be abolished? We are also now hearing that rents that were not paid during the pandemic should also be abolished. How much further will this rage go?

 What is third on the list?

3. A rage for an equal division of property.

It seems that James Madison knew what would be on the minds of AOC, Antifa and Black Lives Matter 250 years ago.

Notice the specific words that Madison used when he referred to these "projects".  Could he have been any clearer about what he thought?

RAGE. IMPROPER. WICKED.

I would dare say that even today's U.S. Supreme Court should have no problem in interpreting his intent in using those words.

Is inflation in our future?

Louis Gave is a global economic observer who has been in the deflationary camp for a long time. He  thinks the winds have changed.

He sums it up this way.

Credit: John Mauldin, Thoughts From The Frontline

Stay tuned. 

What If The Majority Is Wrong?

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America had a deep distrust of the use of power when they established the nation.

They were concerned about too much concentration of power in the hands of a few. They had just separated themselves from what they thought was a tyrannical monarchy. They did not want to return to anything like that.

They wanted a strong and effective national government but they did not want that power concentrated in a few. That is the reason we have the three branches of government and a separation of powers.  It is designed so that power is not concentrated in a few.

They were also concerned about too much power being wielded by the majority. They distrusted a pure democracy for that reason. The majority could end up suppressing and marginalizing the minority. That could be true even with a slim majority of one vote. 

That is a reason was have a representative republican form of government rather than a democracy. It is also the reason we have a Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, religion and the other rights enumerated in those first ten amendments primarily exist to protect the rights of those who might be in the minority.

Of course, the major reason to be concerned about pure majority rule is the fact that the majority view may be wrong.

We have seen this time over time in history.

For a good portion of history it was almost universally the opinion of medical doctors and scientists that bloodletting was the best method to treat any type of disease. We recognize that as totally insane today but it was what almost every doctor believed to be right.

For centuries most doctors prescribed using mercury to treat a variety of ailments. Never mind that we now know that mercury is one of the most toxic substances on earth.

You may recall that a strong majority of NASA scientists argued that it was safe to launch the Challenger space shuttle in 1986 despite concerns expressed by some involving the launch decision that conditions were too cold to trust the integrity of the "O" rings in the booster rocket that might fail in those conditions. We know how they ended.

Space Shuttle Challenger Explosion, January 28, 1986
Source: CNN

The same was true with the analysis of whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The vast majority of intelligence analysts (in the United States and other countries) argued that Saddam Hussein had those weapons and was an imminent threat to world peace. That assessment led to the decision to invade Iraq in 2002.

What if the majority is wrong?

That question is not asked enough.

As I wrote in my last blog post, a big reason for this is that there is such a strong urge in most human beings to conform.

It is also true that not many want to rock the boat and challenge majority opinion. In fact, 95% of most any crowd is made up of followers.

This was demonstrated a few years ago in a research study at the University of Leeds conducted by Professor Jens Krause.

The study showed that it takes a minority of just five percent to influence a crowd's direction - and that the other 95 percent follow without even realizing what is going on.Professor Krause, with PhD student John Dyer, conducted a series of experiments in which groups of volunteers walked randomly around a large hall. Within the group, a few received instructions regarding where to walk. Participants were not allowed to communicate with one or intentionally influence anyone.

The findings in all cases revealed that the informed individuals were followed by the others in the crowd, forming a self-organizing, snake-like structure (or flock of sheep, take your pick). 

"We've all been in situations where we got swept along by a crowd," said Professor Krause. "But what's interesting about this research is that our participants ended up making a consensus decision despite the fact that they weren't allowed to talk or gesture to one another. In most cases the participants didn't realize they were being led by others at all." 

Consider all of this as we look at what we are experiencing in the United States right now.

There seems to be no room left for divergent opinions or views.

People who don't toe the line are censored or silenced.

This has been especially true on anything that has not matched the popular narrative on Covid.

The lockdowns were absolutely necessary.

Schools had to be closed.

Masks are absolutely critical in preventing the transmission of Covid.

The use of hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to treat Covid is irresponsible and dangerous.

It is preposterous to suggest that Covid may have been formulated and escaped from the Wuhan lab.

The vaccines are safe and effective for everyone (even children and those who were previously infected with Covid and have natural antibodies).

How many of these will it be shown that the majority was wrong when we are able to assess all of this in the fullness of time?

Why was it that other voices had to be censored or silenced?

For example, one of the more interesting pieces of information I have seen in the last week was the Senate testimony of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Stephen Marks of the FDA and Dr. Rochelle Walensky of the CDC on how many of their employees had been vaccinated.

Based on the majority narrative, you would think it has to be close to 100%. After all, these are medical professionals who fully understand the risks of Covid and the advantages of the vaccines. We are told over and over again they are safe and effective. Many want to mandate everyone has to be vaccinated to be able to do anything in society through a vaccine passport.

The surprising answer was around 60% at NIH and the FDA, Walensky dodged the question.

Those are majorities. However, there are substantial minorities of medical professionals at the NIH, FDA and CDC who have taken a different position. These are people who undoubtedly have had access to the vaccines for many months considering where they work. These are people who should also have the very best information on the benefits and risks of the vaccines. Do you ever hear about this minority view?

Are these views even allowed to be heard?

Source: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/dr-fauci-cdc-director-testify-before-senate-on-covid-19-guidelines-transcript

In looking at the last 15 months there have been two very visible instances where we saw some who refused to conform.

We can now look at the record and whether the dissent of the majority view was right or wrong.

The first was Sweden.

As almost every other country chose to lockdown, mask and close schools, Sweden did not conform. They opted to do as much as they could to protect the most vulnerable and let the rest of the country attempt to be as normal as they could.

Going their own way brought enormous criticism. Sweden was pilloried for being uncaring and cruel.

However, let's look at the data 15 months into the pandemic.

Sweden suffered excess mortality like almost all countries early, but looking at the last 15 months in its entirety, the nation with the "minority" view has generally had lower excess mortality than countries that embraced lockdowns, school closure and mandated masks.

How is that possible if lockdowns, school closures and masks were the ONLY answer as we were told by the majority narrative.

Which country looks like they handled it better?

Sweden vs. Germany

Sweden vs. France

Sweden vs. UK

Sweden vs. United States

The other example of courage in standing against conformity that I found significant was one you might find surprising. Some might even consider it trivial in the scheme of things.

I found it anything but considering the circumstances.

I am referring to the decision of the SEC, ACC and Big 12 to proceed with their fall football seasons when all the other major college football conferences were announcing cancellation of their games for the year.

Of the Division 1 FBS conferences, the MAC cancelled their season first and was quickly followed by the Mountain West, the PAC 12 and Big Ten. It looked like conformity contagion would take hold and the entire college football season would be cancelled (or postponed until the Spring).

The majority narrative that was being used that it was much too dangerous for these college athletes to play and to be exposed to Covid. Doctors for some of the schools stated that a number of athletes could end up with serious heart conditions from Covid that could be as high as 15-20%.

However, unlike what occurred with college closures in the Spring, the SEC, ACC and Big 12 did not conform.

They decided to move forward on their own with a conference only slate of games beginning in late September.

In the end, the other major conferences blinked and were forced to conform. All later played abbreviated schedules. However, the SEC, which was criticized for moving forward with its schedule, ultimately played all of its games save for one. 

Credit: College Football News

As for the heart issue, a study of 3,000 athletes found less than 1% developed any type of heart issue from the virus.

This is from an ESPN story on the retrospective study that studied the heart issues.

A study released Saturday examining more than 3,000 college athletes who had COVID-19 found so few instances of heart-related issues that future cardiac testing might be used only for athletes with certain symptoms.

In the study, published in the American Heart Association's journal, Circulation, researchers found signs of possible, probable or definite myocarditis, or heart inflammation, in 21 of 3,018 athletes (0.7%) who had tested positive for COVID-19. It also showed that athletes with heart issues were more likely to have had moderate COVID-19 and/or cardiopulmonary symptoms.

What if the majority is wrong?

More people ought to ask the question.

More people should also respect those that offer a different opinion.

More people should also consider that someone else might be more knowledgeable or have a better perspective about an issue than they do.

At one time I thought I didn't even need to say this.

This is clearly not that time.