The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health

by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Complex scientific and moral problems are not resolved through censorship of dissenting opinions, deleting content from the Internet, or defaming scientists and authors who present information challenging to those in power. Censorship leads instead to greater distrust of both government institutions and large corporations. There is no ideology or politics in pointing out the obvious: scientific errors and public policy errors do occur—and can have devastating consequences. Errors might result from flawed analysis, haste, arrogance, and sometimes, corruption. Whatever the cause, the solutions come from open-minded exploration, introspection, and constant review. Ideally, science and public policy are never static. They are a process, a collaboration, a debate and a partnership. If powerful people challenged by this book claim it contains misinformation, our response is simply this: Tell us where you believe something is incorrect, make your best arguments, and offer the best available support for those arguments. We encourage and invite dialogue, criticism, engagement—and every suggestion will be heard and considered.

Nearly every lawsuit I have ever litigated pitted highly credentialed experts from opposite sides against each other, with all of them swearing under oath to diametrically antithetical positions based on the same set of facts. Telling people to “trust the experts” is either naive or manipulative—or both.

During the centuries that science has fruitlessly sought remedies against coronavirus (aka the common cold), only zinc has repeatedly proven its efficacy in peer-reviewed studies. Zinc impedes viral replication, prophylaxing against colds and abbreviating their duration.35 The groaning shelves that commercial pharmacies devote to zinc-based cold remedies attest to its extraordinary efficacy.

“The Best Practices for defeating an infectious disease epidemic,” says Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch, “dictate that you quarantine and treat the sick, protect the most vulnerable, and aggressively develop repurposed therapeutic drugs, and use early treatment protocols to avoid hospitalizations.”

“Unless you are an island nation prepared to shut out the world, you can’t stop a global viral pandemic, but you can make it less deadly. Our objective should have been to devise treatments that would reduce hospitalization and death. We could have easily defanged COVID-19 so that it was less lethal than a seasonal flu. We could have done this very quickly. We could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”

Dr. Peter McCullough concurs: “Once a highly transmissible virus like COVID has a beachhead in a population, it is inevitable that it will spread to every individual who lacks immunity. You can slow the spread, but you cannot prevent it—any more than you can prevent the tide from rising.” McCullough was an internist and cardiologist on staff at the Baylor University Medical Center and the Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital in Dallas, Texas. His 600 peer-reviewed articles in the National Library of Medicine make McCullough the most published physician in history in the field of kidney disease related to heart disease, a lethal sequela of COVID-19. Before COVID-19, he was editor of two major journals. His recent publications include over 40 on COVID-19, including two landmark studies on critical care of the disease. His two breakthrough papers on the early treatment of COVID-19 in The American Journal of Medicine41 and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine42 in 2020 are, by far, the most downloaded documents on the subject. “I’ve had COVID-19 myself with pulmonary involvement,” he told me. “My wife has had it. On my wife’s side of the family, we’ve had a fatality . . . I believe I have as much or more medical authority to give my opinion as anybody in the world.” McCullough observes that, “We could have dramatically reduced COVID fatalities and hospitalizations using early treatment protocols and repurposed drugs including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and many, many others...

“He should have created hotlines and dedicated websites for medical professionals to call in with treatment questions and to consult, collect, catalogue, and propagate the latest innovations for prophylaxing vulnerable and exposed individuals, and treating early infections, so as to avert hospitalizations.”

The Japanese were already using Prednisone, Budesonide, and Famotidine with extraordinary results.

That study, titled “The Pathophysiologic Basis and Clinical Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19,”51 quickly became the world’s most-downloaded paper to help doctors treat COVID-19.

From the outset, I want to make clear that I take no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS. I include this history because it provides an important case study illustrating how—some four hundred years after Galileo—politics and power continue to dictate “scientific consensus,” rather than empiricism, critical thinking, or the established steps of the scientific method. It is a hazard to both democracy and public health when a kind of religious faith in authoritative pronouncements supplants disciplined observation, rigorous proofs, and reproducible results as the source of “truth” in the medical field.

While consensus may be an admirable political objective, it is the enemy of science and truth. The term “settled science” is an oxymoron. The admonishment that we should “trust the experts” is a trope of authoritarianism. Science is disruptive, irreverent, dynamic, rebellious, and democratic. Consensus and appeals to authority (be it CDC, WHO, Bill Gates, Anthony Fauci, or the Vatican) are features of religion, not science. Science is tumult. Empirical truth generally arises from the tilled, agitated, and upturned soils of debate. Doubt, skepticism, questioning, and dissent are its fertilizers. Every great scientific advance in history, every transformative idea, from evolution to heliocentrism to relativity, met initial ridicule from the panjandrums of “scientific consensus.”

As novelist and physician Dr. Michael Crichton observed, Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such t...