American Thought Leaders - Top 10 Biggest Revelations From the Fauci Diaries | Jeffrey Tucker

Episode Date: August 21, 2026

A trove of newly released documents, colloquially known as the “Fauci Diaries,” offer an unusually revealing window into the decisions and dynamics that shaped the COVID-19 era.Jeffrey Tucker spent days reading all the documents—over 1,100 pages of materials—which were prepared within the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and appear to have been intended, at least in part, as the foundation for an autobiography.Tucker argues that these records offer key insights into what Dr. Anthony Fauci knew, when he knew it, and how that knowledge influenced public messaging and policy.We discuss the early push for an mRNA vaccine, the influential WHO delegation to China in February 2020, the origins and consequences of lockdown policies, and Fauci’s relationship with the media.Why did so many countries adopt elements of China’s COVID response? What do the documents reveal about the debate over the lab-leak theory? And why did the vaccination push intensify even as breakthrough infections became increasingly apparent?We also examine the clash between Fauci and President Donald Trump, the treatment of dissenting scientists behind the Great Barrington Declaration, and the broader question of how the official history of the pandemic will be written.Dr. Fauci did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Newly released documents, colloquially known as the Fauci Diaries, are reshaping our understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic. It has changed the story completely. In this episode, Jeffrey Tucker explains all the key details revealed in the documents, connects the missing pieces, and explains the broader picture that emerges. He calls them the new Pentagon Papers. The shots themselves never made any contribution to the achievement of her. achievement of herd immunity.

Fauci knew from the second week of January 2021. Tucker is the founder and president of the Brownstone Institute and Senior Economics columnist at the Eapok Times. In Fauci's meeting with Donald Trump in the overall office, and Fauci has one request of him, we've got to send a delegation to China to look at their data.

Well, they didn't look at the data. What they did was went on a propaganda tour. This report is extremely crucial. in causing the rest of the world to copy what the CCP, what they believed that the CCB did. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Yankee Kelleck. Jeffrey Tucker, so good to have you back on American Thought Leaders. Pleasure to be here. Thank you, Jan.

So, Jeffrey, you've described this dump of government notes from Dr. Anthony Fauci, colloquially known as the Fauci Diary or Diaries as perhaps the most impactful or important trove of information since the Pentagon Papers. Now that's a pretty startling assertion. And so explain to me what you're saying here. Well, it's something we didn't expect. We have thousands, if not tens of thousands of the documents on the COVID era, many of which pertain to Fauci, but there were so many missing pieces. And what we've really lacked is something like a document giving private thoughts. Now, let me be clear about this. It's not quite private thoughts.

I'm pretty sure that this was the notes towards an autobiography. So he was planning his autobiography. He had his staff working with him on this. That much is clear. So other people within NIH saw it. He had somebody putting daily dumps of data in there. there along with somebody chronicling all of his media appearances, which are also thoroughly chronicled day by day.

So this is a group project of NIAID. So we get a really unprecedented look into the unfolding of events through the diabetes. It's not sufficient. You really do need to understand the trajectory of time in order to get a proper understanding of what he's saying when he said it and that sort of thing. But there is so much in here that is so incredibly mind-blowing. I'm not even going to say that I'm the guy who understands every aspect of this because I keep finding new bits of information in there that I never would have imagined.

So one thing that comes out right at the beginning, which is something that I just didn't know, but basically that these MRNA vaccine shots, they're already being worked on on January 14th, 2020. And this is kind of, I don't know if this is the starting point, but this is a very significant date that I wasn't aware of. I was not aware of that either. This is much earlier than I expected.

And he says it rather inauspiciously that he's got a manufacturer, namely Moderna. He's got a researcher involved. I think his name is Barney Graham, who, if you look it up, was the holder of the patent for a vaccine that would manipulate the spike in coronaviruses. This thing was given to him, issued to him on 2017, so just a few years earlier. And NIH tagged him to work with Moderna on the shot, a company that never produced any kind of pharmaceutical product, but nonetheless had a very large capital base at the time.

So that was January 14th. So the fact that Fauci puts that in the diary, just one sentence, all right, we're working on a vaccine, is extremely revealing because, well, for a number of reasons. I mean, one is that he was, Fauci was telling reporters as late as third week of February that we don't need a vaccine to get out of this pandemic. We can get out of it through social distancing alone.

That's what he told Michael Garrison of the Washington Post. So that's a strange thing. Did he believe in the vaccine or not? Your guess is as good as mine. My sense is that he might not have had any real strong confidence that the vaccine was the way out, but that he felt like over time that he had to kind of rally around it as the method by which he would declare the country cured from this virus of zoonotic release and that he can take credit for it thereby and then also kind of put to rest all the immediate suspicions

that this virus was from was a consequence of a lab league from a lab that he had personally been involved in funding which I think was his his core fear now that that That point I just made is something that needs to be understood as you go through the diaries. And this is a point that I've known since at least the fall of 2021. That very early on, he, Fauci and others involved, including Jeremy Farrar, were concerned, very concerned that this might have come from a lab. Now my guess is that Farrar knew less than Fauci knew. in other words, knew that it very likely did.

Jeremy Farrar was not entirely sure, but it was in the third week of January that they all started going to burner phones and private phone calls and really started to go into full panic mode. So if you read the diaries in that context, what they knew when, it starts to, you can just feel.

feel the storm just coming from really the second week of January. So why did this happen? And if I may, now here I'm filling in my own interpretive details. The diary begins with Fauci first of all, getting news of this virus in China. So he blasts past that very quickly and goes on to warn about a very serious season of flu. And he has several entries going on about flu cases arising. We've got a major problem with flu. So why is he doing this?

And by the way, a week or two later, the CDC comes to Fauci and says, why do you keep talking about the flu? I mean, there's no justification in the data that we're seeing that there's going to be a bad flu year. This is ridiculous. So my interpretive lens is that Fauci had a plan. had a plan A, and the plan A was to hope that this virus from China would vanish within the firmament of a bad flu year. That the news would bury, would be buried about this virus,

and that because of the gradient of death was so extreme towards the infirm and the elderly, and the infection fatality rate very likely very low, that Fauci thought, well, if the tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, that it really fall, you know, maybe not. Well, so this, I think, was plan A. But then the news leaks more and more and more. By the third week of January, you've got a major problem. But everybody in the world is talking about this virus. He's being called to go on TV.

He realizes there's no way to kind of just make this go away. So he pivots away from normal flu over to plan B, which is, okay, we've got first, well, there's a number of parts of plan B. The very first step is to tag top experts to make sure that they can explain to the world that this is a spillover from animals to humans and not a manufactured virus from the lab. So that's step one. And that one is accomplished pretty early on. By late January, they already have the meeting set up. And by February 1st, we had that famous phone call with the authors of what became the proximal origin paper. You know, the other thing is just very, very early on.

We're talking about, in my notes, February 8th, 2020, he already has gotten word at this point that the case fatality rate is like 10.000. 10 times less than what is being brandished about. You know, people were talking before that about 2 to 3 percent, which would be kind of catastrophic pandemic, and this was 0.2%. Yeah. How does that fit in?

This information comes from the former head of the CDC, who, and that was the consensus of the time. I mean, that, you can read everything at that time, and all available data says that this is going to be, was going to be roughly consistent with the severe flu. Now we don't have, by the way, this is actually one of the strange things I learned, is we don't actually have precise numbers on the case fatality rate or the infection fatality rate of the flu.

So it's very hard to compare. But it looked at 0.2.3% like it was going to be a bad flu year. And that's what Fowchery was being told, which is, which is incredible. incredibly striking because a month later, about five weeks later, Fouchy's testifying in front of the House, House of Representatives, and the Senate. And at both those testimonies, he was floating the idea from the World Health Organization that the World Health Organization is speculating that this is a 2 to 3 percent mortality rate. Now, when he says mortality rate, he's not specifying cases, not especially infections.

This is a little bit obscure. But then he dials it back and says, well, I don't think it's going to be that high. I think it's going to be closer to 1%. And then I remember there's a scene where the Senate is there. And these guys are not infectious disease experts, right, much less statisticians. And Fauci says, a 1% fatality rate. Now, that's lower than the World Health Organization thinks, but keep it in perspective. That's 10 times worse than the annual flu.

And at that moment, you could just see the faces go white. Now you're a member of the Senate and you think, well, there's a hundred of us. That means two of us, or at least one of us, is going to die. You could just tell that that Fauci is just surprised. spreading fear throughout the political class at that point, even though he had very credible evidence that he was exaggerating this by 10 times. That's a very huge exaggeration by any standard, obviously, and obviously changes how one might react to such a thing as a society and so forth.

But you mentioned the WHO here, and this is something that you pointed out. out to me, which I thought was, again, incredibly fascinating that in Dr. Fauci's interaction with President Trump in the Oval, his one request, like he can ask anything, right, of the most powerful man in the world, and he's getting domed. And the thing he asks for is for a WHO-led junket to China, for the president to ask Xi Jinping's permission to have such an activity. And that is, I mean, I still don't entirely know what to make of that. Well, thank you for bringing this up. I've been trying to focus on this particular point for for years. There was this very strange junket that was organized by the, during, while travel

restrictions were in place, so we're talking about chartered flights and that sort of thing. Sponsored by the World Health Organization involved officials from the UK, Europe, and the National Institutes of Health in the U.S., Fauci sent his deputy Clifford Lane over on this trip. That trip took place starting at the second week of February and sponsored by the World Health Organization. This delegation was brought to Wuhan and several other cities. We have all their records, all the travel logs and everything. several of the and there were being quarter around they were there were

there were being ferreted about by CCP officials in a kind of what's called a Potemkin village tour this is the tours Soviet Union used to give to visitors to show how much how many groceries and how well people are living in this Potemkin village right so so here you have CCP giving a delegation from from from from the UK and from the US and Europe, showing them how well they did with virus control. And one thing just to jump in, right, is that it was even worse than a Potomkin tour

because they didn't actually let them into the lab, right? They just kind of said, we'll tell you how it is. And they said, okay, great, thank you. Now we know, let's go home. I mean, I'm exaggerating. They wind and dined them. They wind and dined them for quite a long time, up to about a week. And so what was the purpose of this tour?

Now, this is why I think it gets really interesting and spooky. Gigi Pig's message of this tour was, we are much better at managing infectious disease than you. With our system of government, which is a one-party state and totalitarian dictatorial rule, we have vast advantages over you people in the West with your human rights and freedom and democracy. Your system is inefficient and it's also unscientific. We, on the other hand, have the science on our side. And so when this virus came along, we knew exactly what to do.

We welded people inside their apartments. We told people that you can't drive. We emptied out all the cities. We gave issued stay-home orders. We did what you in the West were called violated people's rights. And why do we do that? Because it was the right thing to do from a public health standpoint. And we can do that because we have the power.

You guys don't have such powers that shows how much better we are at doing things than you. Now, this is 100% propaganda. Their lockdowns achieved nothing in terms of stopping the spread of a virus that everybody in the planet Earth would eventually, to which everybody in the planet Earth would eventually be exposed. Right? So this was always a lie. It was utterly ridiculous.

But somehow the CCP invited all these useful idiots from abroad to come in and observe the magnificence. And here's the question, did it work? Oh, did it work? It absolutely worked. They put out a report on February 24th. Coming home on the plane, they're furiously typing, at celebrating the glories of the CCP and the China model for controlling infectious disease.

The Chinese people rallied around their leader. They did the right thing, and they've had a remarkable impact. They've controlled this thing, and they're people who have. and their people are protected. God bless communism with Chinese characteristics. You can read it online right now. It's the World Health Organization report from their trip to Wuhan,

written by an employee at the World Health Organization who has her PhD from Stanford University. So this report is extremely crucial. extremely crucial in causing the rest of the world to copy what the CCP, what they believed that the CCB did. In fact, one person, I've long had the sense that the entire pandemic response would have been differently, different without this World Health Organization report. But I spoke to a person who much more knowledgeable than I am in a position to know who

told me that absolutely that report was a turning point. That's what kicked in motioned the lockdowns in the U.S. and the U.K. and all over Europe. It was this one report. So that's how important it was. So the question I've always had from the beginning of this thing was, where did the idea of this report come along? Who approved it? And how did it come to be? Well, now, thanks to the diaries, we know.

And Fauci's first meeting with Donald Trump in the over office, and Trump's been told already this is a very smart guy. It's the guy your go-to person. He's the best infectious disease doctor and scientist in America. And Fauci has one request of him. When do you talk to Xi Jinping? Make sure that he's okay with the delegation from the World Health Organization coming to Wuhan to observe his genius at managing infectious disease.

And Fauci says this in a diary entry, that they, oh, we've got to send a delegation to try to look at their data. Well, they didn't look at the data. What they did was went on a propaganda tour. So this entry is unbelievably powerful and strange and creepy in ways I just, I almost can't even fathom.

Well, and there's two other dimensions that just come to my mind, right? One of them is just the perhaps the strange credulity with which everyone was treating the Chinese data. I remember, like, they would show the numbers and look how low the Chinese numbers are. And, I mean, you know, the rule number one of looking at any data points from Communist China is that they have primarily a propaganda purpose. whether they're true or not is a distant other question. Sometimes they might be, sometimes they may not be. And it's still astonishing to me that people don't understand this.

That's one thing. But the other part is that the WHO is very heavily influenced by communist China. I mean, the head of it is China's choice for leadership. That is exactly right. That is exactly right. And you put all these data plants together. There are many ways to interpret the COVID era, many. But one of them is that it was the entire thing was a master plan hatched by the CCP.

I mean, just to put a fine point on it, that's what we've talked about so far, what it looks like to me. And there's plenty of evidence of that. A brilliant master plan to shame the West for its freedoms. Look, your freedoms are going to make people sick and prevent you from doing the right thing. which is to turn all your countries into a prison state like China, and shamed people into doing the unthinkable, which was to override the Bill of Rights

and issue stay-at-home orders and abolish religious holidays and close the schools and destroy businesses. And that's in fact what happened. And it kind of worked. And meanwhile, China's lockdowns didn't last that long, certainly not as long as they'd lasted. long as they'd last in the U.S. and Europe and Latin American Africa. Africa had a much more difficult time locking down.

But after the lockdowns were lifted in China, there was widespread celebration. Look, we solved the problem. We had a bad, SARS-CoV-2 was bad, but thanks to our great leader, we solved the problem. I don't know what's wrong with you guys, but you still have a problem? We don't have a problem. Crazy. I mean, absolutely, absolutely crazy. And the other thing, you know, to kind of look at this grand conspiracy hypothesis a little further,

in my view, during Trump 45 and the first Trump administration, the first tariffs were instituted by the, you know, crafted by the U.S. trade representative. And my own assessment, and I think this goes just beyond me here at Epoch, this was possibly the first instance of communist China being forced into a trade position that it didn't want to be in explicitly in decades, in many, many decades, right? The status quo had become basically, you know, we get everything we want, right? which has resulted in hollowing out of America and the growth of the world's largest dictatorship, et cetera, et cetera. So that and just before COVID, right, just before COVID, the first policies were instituted that, I mean, they were trying to avoid this like the plague and ultimately, of course, reneged on it.

And you can, you know, you showed me this amazing, you know, Fred graph where you can see, immediately after the COVID response, you get this back to the status quo in terms of trade, U.S. China, which is pretty astonishing. Yeah, I think that chart is amazing. It's about China, but it's also about something even bigger than that. It has to do with the post-war trading order. As we're coming out of World War II in the U.S., all the best and the brightest cobbled together these systems, Britain Woods,

monetary system, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and crucially GATT, the general agreement on tariffs and trade. And the ideology behind GATT was, more trade is always better, more globalism is better than nationalism. We will never go back to a world of tariffs and nations going their own way. So that was the ideology from 1945. Actually, it predates that, but that was sort of the one great victory coming out of, in the post-war world by the ruling class at least. And I say that because I knew some of these guys, right? And they have good hearts, good people, they had ideals in mind, free trade for the world, yeah, right? And pretty much, if you go from 1945, 1946, all the way up

through NAFTA, right, to the World Trade Organization, we're building these international institutions with the muscle and the power to kind of force open markets, to continue to lower tariffs, to increase national reliance on each other. This is the one dominant trajectory of world history that we saw from that period all the way up to 2018. If I can just mention one thing to interject, this idea came from the war, right? The idea was if you develop deep, deep trade ties between all these countries. They're not going to go to war with each other because it'll just be too damaging. And, you know, that seems like a pretty good idea on the surface. Yeah, and even more, I don't want to get too diverted here, but it even traces back long before

the world, even all the way to 1932, because there was an impression that the smooth holly tariffs that were pursued in the U.S. contributed to really causing the Great Depression. So this whole generation is like, well, if we can just have globalism, we'll get rid of war and depression. What else do you want? That's the greatest. That's utopia. So that was the theory. And Donald Trump came along in 2016 running on the platform that we've got to do something about the Halloween out of our industrial base.

This whole system is not working for us. We've lost countless numbers of industries during this whole period. time. We're being ripped off as a nation. We've got to fix this. So 2018 was the biggest, vis-vis China, the biggest step away from this post-world war trading apparatus that we had seen in 75 years. So I remember thinking at the time, I thought, you know, I'm not sure that this happens without some kind of consequence. And I don't mean economic consequence, that was always uncertain to me, but like political consequence. You know, what would happen right now?

Well, in 2018, you're right, this chart shows imports from China plummeting. And that continued up until the very moment of March 16th through March 18th. And why? Why did this turn around? Why did the U.S. suddenly have vast and growing... imports from China again. Like what turned it around? Well, the U.S. needed PPE, personal protective equipment. So we needed masks, we needed robes, we needed syringes, we needed swabs, we needed all these things that we didn't have. So Trump's on the phone with Xi Jinping saying, geez, what do

you think about striking up our trade relationship again? No problem, Mr. President. I'll be right on that. And boom, it turns around. So, you know, this is, this is, this is, this is, you know, this is definitely part of the story. So China really, if you want to look at it and totally, China was just the winner from this whole slice of time between January and late March. They got everything they wanted and the U.S. was in many ways fooled into adopting CCP style tactics of virus control, fake, phony, propaganda, and then also reverse Trump's attempt to re-industrialize the U.S. by finally taming its relationship with China. Well, and just this is a somewhat of a fine point, but the regime was definitely the benefit.

I'm not so sure the Chinese people were the beneficiary here. Yeah, no, of course, I mean, when we speak about these names like China, the U.S., and so on, it's always more and more in the world today. You know, it's the people versus their rulers, and that's probably never more true than it is. in China, which is one of the things that disgusted me most about the World Health Organization report. So here you have these useful idiots of the West hanging out of cocktail parties and dinners, wine and dining with CCP, riding on the way home in their confi charter jets, that the Chinese people are united in spirit and rallied behind their leaders.

They're saying this, it's just appalling. It's just a polling. Oh, I'm sure the people, just loved being welded into their homes. It's just, it's just so, it's so despicable. But this was that, that junk to Wuhan was really the beginning of a great, great calamity for the US and Europe. Something that's astonishing in these files in this diary is there's this moment on April 23,

2020 where Fauci is writing about how the president is very angry at him. So I know that you've remarked on this. You know, lay that out for me. That's a very important moment. Okay, so this is much earlier, this is much earlier than I thought. This is extremely interesting because Fauci was, Trump was introduced to Anthony Fauci sometime and it just heard his name. for the first time in February. Then they meet. And Trump had to trust him. For one thing, everybody he knew was telling him to trust Fauci.

And Fauci did not have a reputation as to be a partisan. There's no reason to think that Fauci was any sense plotting against Trump at this point. I mean, he reveals this later in the biography, in the autobiography, in the diaries. He said, after the November election, he says, only an idiot would have voted for Trump. I don't know.

I can't believe that people would vote for this guy. So he gets increasingly insulting. But at this point, in February and March of 2020, Trump had to trust him. And also, Trump was being surrounded by a subject about which he didn't, nothing in his life as a CEO had confronted him with the problem of what to do in the case of a pandemic or infectious disease. This was not why he was elected president. So, of course, he's happy to trust people. And also everybody around him says, trust Fowdrich. trust Fauci. So he did. Deborah Birx was also tapped, who was also a kind of protege of

Fauci, and they started making these dramatic decisions. The most dramatic of which was on March 16th, Fauci put out a PDF calling for all bars and restaurants to be closed, for any place where people gather to be shut, for all people to stand six feet apart from each other. It's just extreme things you never would have imagined whatever happened in this country. They happened that day and they passed it out at a press conference where Trump is presiding. I'm not entirely sure I've watched that tape so many times. But the papers distributed to the press, it's not clear that Trump had, you know, why would he have said, hey, let me see a copy of that. So I'm not sure he had known.

Also, it was in tiny print on page two. All the things I just mentioned to you, close the bars and restaurants, stay apart, close all congregate medians and everything. It's in tiny print at the bottom of page two. And when Fauci got up to the microphone and read that to the gathered reporters, somebody had attracted Trump's attention from the audience. So Trump himself wasn't actually paying any attention. He was waving to somebody, waving at them, catching their eyes, saying hello. Trump, Fauci read the sentence and sat down. Trump was called back up.

So that was March 16th, a really dramatic day. So at a catastrophe, because this stock market crashed, obviously, the economic activity was falling apart. We divided the workforce between essential and essential. This is a disaster for the country, but also for Trump politically. So the question to my mind has always been, when did he first realize this? Well, the diaries revealed this. It was by April 23rd, he invites Deborah Berks into his office and begins to scream. And Fauci quotes this.

You and Tony have tricked me. You've ruined the country. You destroyed everything. I never should have trusted you. This is what you've done is a design. Well, Fauci reports this and then says that he told Deborah, don't worry about it. Everything's going to be okay. So why would he say that?

Why would he say everything's going to be okay? We've got the President of the United States has turned ferociously against them. Why did he think they were going to be okay? And I think the reason was that Fauci had spent the last previous six weeks cultivating very close relationships with the national press. and becoming this sort of godlike figure to whom everybody turned for all answers. And the national press and Fauci figured out this funny little quid pro-core relationship.

You treat me like a great expert. I'll continue to do my work, make me, I'll be ever more popular, and working from within, I'll do everything I can to undermine Trump. And there was a wink, wink, nudge-nudge relationship between the press and Fauci that had already been born and everybody knew what was going on by, certainly by April 23rd, so it made it very difficult for Trump to just fire these guys.

I mean, he probably wanted, he most certainly wanted to fire them. But by that time, the ethos, the culture, the media, everything that was happening, kind of seemingly made that impossible. Already the press is ready to treat him. as some sort of red state, the unscientific guy. He doesn't know anything. He's not an expert in anything.

If he goes and fires Fauci and Berks at this point, it would seem to confirm everything that the press was saying bad about Trump. So Trump couldn't really do that. So for this reason, Fauci assures Trump, assures Deborah, it's going to be fine. You'll see. Everything's going to be fine because Fauci and knew that he was being protected at that point.

And explain to me what you mean by this nudge, nudge, wink, wink relationship exactly. Well, so there's things you say on the record and there's things you say off the record. So Fauci was very good at talking to the press off the record about all the things that he really believed. He was not a fan of Trump. He didn't like Trump. He let them know this in a way that allowed the national media that didn't like Trump to trust Fauci.

Then he would go on the record and say nice things about it. I think Trump's a good president. I think he's letting me do whatever I want. So that's very crucial that he tells the press over and over again. Trump is an okay guy. He's never interfered in my capacity to manage this pandemic. In other words, he's taking my advice. And for that reason, I think he's a good guy.

But the press knew otherwise. They began to treat Fauci as the kind of foil to Trump. was the fool, Fauci is the genius. And so they were playing this game. And brilliant, this game lasted for more than a year. I mean, it began in February, but it lasted really up to, really, two years. It just kept, and even all the way up to the time he resigned, this sort of funny relationship. So you had this consolidation of the press rallying around Fauci and anyone of whom Fouchy and

whom Fauci approved. One of the amusing aspects of the that comes through later in the diarist is something I didn't know, which is that there's a group that was meeting, I think weekly called the TV Doctors. This is what Fauci calls them, the TV doctors. The TV doctors invited me in this week so we could coordinate our messaging.

The TV doctors. So let's just say, that's not your general practitioner. This is not your great uncle. These are the people that the national media had decided were going to reflect the science. And Fauci was variously instructing them on what to say. That's why we had such a unified message. And I tell you, John, I can't even fathom it. There are days in this diary where he lists 10, 11, and 12 media appearances in one day.

Now, if there were every day in my life where I woke up and I saw on my calendar that I had 12 media appearances, I don't know what I would do. I would panic. If I have three, you know, that takes me away from all work. This is pretty much all Fouchy did. And he would not go, and we also know this from other emails to his own staff, he would not go on any unfriendly media venues. He would not go on anywhere that he thought would ask him a hard question. He would only go to those people who would pitch him softball. This was everyday for a factory.

It wasn't reading the science, which is another thing you get from the diaries. It's very little, almost nothing in the diaries that suggest he's reading preprints of studies or having any consultations with any serious scientists that are much less practitioners out of the ground. They're trying to do something about COVID. This was not part of the way he was thinking. It just didn't even figure into it. So the whole time he's talking about the science this, the science, that,

he was paying little or no attention to any, any data or any opinions from any experts. It's funny, too, because I remember talking, I'll just give the name. Very early on, I was talking to Martin Kruldor from Harvard, and this is one of the things that stood out to me from one of my very first discussions with him. This would have been in August 2020, who later had to leave Harvard while he was, basically fired a tenured, tenured professor with, a full professor was fired from Harvard. And he told me, this was before he left, but he told me, he said, you know, I said, why why is there such a consensus for lockdowns? How is it possible that all the epidemiologists

and public health officials and scientists in this country seem to agree that we need to throw the bill of rights in the trash in order to confront infectious disease? How did that happened and he looked at me and he said you're not going to believe in me but I don't know anybody who agrees with these policies I don't know anybody in my profession and I think I know a lot of people from my vantage point and they all say that this is crazy this is nuts there's nothing and that would ever justify these kinds of school closures business closures travel restrictions all these things nothing would suggest this this pandemic response is crazy

it's without precedent. And Martin told me that none of his scientific colleagues really agree with it. But Fauci didn't want to hear from those people. He only wanted to hear from his people. Yeah, I mean, indeed, he calls the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration like Martin Koldorf, the Three Stooges. That was a particularly vicious thing that comes out in the diaries. We had known before that Francis Collins, the head of NIH, called the Three Sioners of Great Barrington Declaration. The fringe epidemiologists, which is a fairly amusing term fringe epidemiologist, but that was an email sent by Francis Collins to Fauci. And Collins adds to it, we need to do a quick and devastating takedown of these guys. But Fauci doesn't respond. He's too smart for that.

In fact, he was very surreptitious throughout his entire emails because he always assumes they're going to be subject to foias. And the diaries, on the other hand, are another matter. I don't think he ever intended them to get out in any other form other than his autobiography. So he calls them the three stooges, which is, which is, I think, significantly more vicious than a fringe epidemiologists. Well, so, you know, looking in my notes here, you know, in early 2021, we know that from the diaries that, for example, David Hull, kind of very prominent scientist, is basically saying that the delta variant, this new mutation, could render the vaccines useless. Yeah, so plan A, I think, was to bury COVID within the bad flu season.

Plan A didn't work, so we move on to Plan B. First was to deny the lab leak. The second was to deliver unto the population of the great inoccuration. So by the end of the year, oh, another thing that comes out is that Fauci knew it was going to have to wait until after the election. He said, we can get you a vaccine in the earliest in November. Okay, so already we know in March that he had every intention of seeing this come out after the election. So there's a political element here. So the vaccine comes out.

All right. So now we've got the savior vaccine. Now, keep in mind that this virus is of a particular sort. It's not like chickenpox, measles, or mumps, or smallpox. It's not a stable virus against which you can easily vaccinate. It's a mutating respiratory virus that is widespread with a relatively low infection fatality rate. So these kinds of viruses we know for generations, for a very long time, that they mutate.

And that's why we don't have a vaccine, for example, against the common cold. Okay, those are the sort of things that people knew in the past. So Fauci surely knew this. The only question is, you know, at what point he would kind of have to reveal this. So he gets this note from David Ho in the UK

on January the 9th telling him that there is a new variant. And it is, of course, the deliote. the Delta variant. We're no longer in the world of wild type, we're no longer in the world of alpha, the with which the spike protein of which had already been used as the formulation of the preferred shots by Pfizer-Moderna. Now we've got a new variant and it's Delta and according to David Ho, and he's a very good researcher, he says, this new variant is evading the immune protection of the shots. So he knows this already.

And as you point out, by a few weeks later, he's more and more convinced to this. Of course, Delta begins to take over from Alpha. And so now you've got a problem that the great inoculation is not going to protect the population from COVID. It's not going to stop the spread. It's not going to stop infections. And Fauci definitely knows this already by the middle of January. And even confirms that he says, we're going to have to get a new formulation. We're going to have to reformulate this vaccine, which reminds me that scene from

jaws, you know, we're going to need a bigger boat, you know. That always comes to mind. But so he knew this already. So the question is, okay, you know this? Are you going to tell anybody? Are you going to suppress this information? or you're going to be transparent with people? And the answer is that he didn't tell anybody.

He didn't know it. He didn't announce it. Instead, we went straight towards mandates on the military, on hospital workers, and I assume this is a policy that Fauci himself had something to do with, a policy that vaccinate everybody in private companies with more than 100 employees. That was later rejected by the Supreme Court, but already HR departments and all major companies in the U.S. had reconfigured their operations to mandate through the vaccines. So students, universities, every large corporation, America, all health care workers, and everybody in the military, being forced to get these shots that it turns out, in a technical sense, have no public health benefit. So what do I mean by that?

What I mean is if it doesn't stop infection and doesn't stop spread, the shots themselves never made any contribution to the achievement of herd immunity, which is the sole goal of any kind of vaccination program is to contribute to herd immunity and therefore intimacy or making life go back to normal. So Fauci knew from the second week of January 2021, long before you and I had access, or anybody really had access to these shots, that they would not make that critical difference in what we're allegedly supposedly trying to go for, which is the obtaining of herd immunity. So instead, what we got was just a wild demand to get as many shots in arms as possible. In other words, to sell as much of this product as we possibly could, to as many people as we possibly could. They became fanatical. And it's at that moment when Fauci should have said, you know, we've got a problem with this shot. We don't think it's going to work like it was

supposed to. He should have said that. Instead, he became a kind of full-time vaccine salesman for for Moderna and Pfizer. You know, one thing that was talked about was that these, yes, it became clear over time that these things were not stopping transmission or infection, obviously, but they were, this is what was being said, they were reducing the severity of the disease. So that was their value. Yeah, this was very common.

By the way, they used to say this is the 19th century all the time. Anytime there was a lot of injury sickness or shots were working, they always said, well, don't worry, it would have been worse without that. That's always the kind of fallback line. The papers even at the time were coming out were very mixed on this. There was no defendant of evidence that that was true.

In fact, that's actually extremely difficult to statistically prove what amounts to a counterfactual. And this counterfactual has always been advanced by you remember celebrities at the time. Well, I've got COVID. I'm really under the weather. I'm so grateful for the vaccine. It would have been worse without it.

Well, you do, that's actually, that's very, again, it's a counterfactual. You don't know that for sure. So that was never demonstrated that this was true with any degree of scientific confidence. But we were told that through, you know, quite powerful messaging across society. Yeah, and I'll tell you something else that really alarms me that I've heard very little comment about this except in Epoch Times.

People forget that five cities in this country during this period, and as we approach the end of the year, came to be segregated by vaccine status. So it was New York, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco and Chicago, Boston, maybe six cities. But they were all closed any public accommodations to the unvaccinated, which would include libraries, museums, bars, restaurants, theaters, anything. And by implication, too, of course, that would have been churches, but that's one thing they didn't actually, they wouldn't enforce that. Actually, most of the churches themselves adopted this strategy. This very cruel division of urban centers between the clean and the unclean. So just to back up slightly, keep in mind, we know that the vaccine did not stop the spread, that it did not stop infection.

And yet we're segregating five cities, urban areas in this country, and telling the unvaccinated you can't eat in a restaurant, You can't settle up to a, and get a beer in a bar. Now, you've got to use the food trucks and go to the liquor store and drink it home. You know, this actually happened in this country, and there was a brief experiment in New York with digital vaccine passports. Fortunately, they didn't work. So this didn't last long, but this actually happened.

And the entire time, this is what the virus proved, the entire time, Fauci knew that there was no basis, no underlying basis for this at all. In fact, as we approach the fall of 2021, there is a strange moment in the diaries that comes out that Fauci figures out that he can further divide the country politically because he notices that the red states are getting vaccinated at a much lower rate than the blue states. And so this is that the strategy now is obvious. It's just presented to you on a similar platter.

We've got a pandemic of the unvaccinated. It's because you're not accepting the shot that this pandemic is being prolonged. And who are the red states? These are the people that voted for Trump. The unclean are keeping the country in a writhing state. state of disease-ridden sadness. The pandemic's being prolonged by the people who are not complying with Fauci's dictates.

So this line comes along in, I'm going to say, the late summer, early fall of 2021, and sure enough, like clockwork, like clockwork, the national media picks up on it. This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. And then they would put up a map showing, See, most of the places that are not, don't have high levels of a vaccine uptake.

They are the same places that voted for Trump. So you see how this works? Very, very impressive. Kind of getting to middle of 2022, there's this very interesting moment in the diary. Well, basically, where it's Rochelle Valensky that actually wants to kind of move on, I guess, you know, kind of say, okay, here's where we're at.

And but it doesn't quite work out. And maybe you can also give me a sense of how we actually exit. There's this accidental comment that that Biden makes in some interview, he says that the pandemic is over and people surrounded Fauci and said, oh, this pandemic over? Well, not really. So they all had to kind of reverse him on that because they wanted to prolong this as long as possible. Yeah, but you're quite right. It's very late. Wollenski always had a difficult relationship with Fauci, and that emerges in the diaries where he's he defends her, but he's very critical of her. He doesn't like the fact that she keeps wanting to tell the truth to the American people. And the entry you're talking about, he specifically says, you cannot, you cannot go to the American

people and say the shots are not going to protect you against, against COVID. and say that the breakthrough infections are not unusual. They are the norm. They are what you can expect. You cannot do that because that would undermine our attempts to force people to take these shots. So no, you can't do that. So they kind of muzzled her.

It's strange how, this is one of the things I would not have expected from the diaries is that Rochelle Wolenski in this period emerges as kind of I guess you would say a relative sane voice. I mean, an actual decent human beat, and as compared with the author of this draft of the autobiography. So where does this take us next?

I know Senator Ron Johnson has said that he's obtained the phone, Fauci's phone, that they've actually been recovering. you know, significant material on it. I haven't seen any details yet, but just that there is considerable email. Is this, are you expecting this will be something similar in a similar vein? Yeah, I think it will just confirm everything I've seen so far. I've been following this case for six and a half years now trying to figure out what's what. And thanks to the diaries, I have a clearer picture than ever exact what transpired. And I, like Fauci, relationship with Bill Gates, it becomes very obvious in these diaries. It's very tight. He just

used Bill Gates as his automatic teller machine, but he did. He just felt like he'd give him a call and get all the money wanted. I think we're going to see more of the main takeaway that the press was making fun of in the diaries, which is Fauci's own obsequious relationship with with celebrities. So he collects celebrity endorsements. This wasn't just because he's got an ego or he's vain, that may be part of it, but mainly he was kind of job protection for him. It's the same thing with the awards that he was pressing his staff into applying for himself. It wasn't just the money. He was seeking the credibility. He was trying to build a wall around himself that would make him invulnerable, sort of impenetrable wall of protection so he could continue to do

what he was doing, which I think is ultimately explained by his desire to avoid accountability for the lab leak. He was concerned he was going to be called a villain. Well, he wants to be called, you know, a hero. He wanted it to be valorized instead of being vilarized, villainized. And he felt maybe if he felt shame for what he had done and working with EcoHealth Alliance to fund this lab, to gain a function of research, well, he was going to convert that into fame and valor with his shots. I think that's the right way to understand. I think it's the best explanation. And so I assume that if we have the cell phone information, we're going to get more of this more confirmation that this way of looking at the whole COVID era from Fauci's point of view is the right one.

Let me add something on. I can see a person criticizing my presentation here as saying, look, you're putting too much on Fauci. There's a big machine we hear. There's a large pharmaceutical companies. There's big tech involved in censoring people. There's a media that just inexplicably rattle. rallied around violations of free press and was locking poor people in their homes and segregated cities. How do you explain this? There's clearly more actors. We've got the National Security Council involved. We've got Barda involved.

We've got clearly the military at some level involved in this pandemic response. So I'm not saying that this is all Fauci. In fact, it's the strangest feature of this whole thing to remember that he didn't actually have a position as the COVIDs are. He was one member of a fairly large coronavirus task force, but he took it upon himself to develop this media relationship. So his power was soft, what they call soft power, right? But it was in many ways the hardest soft power you can ever imagine. Like what he said, it was very, it was very, insignificant and crafting of the pandemic response and what we did.

There's another thing among hundreds and thousands of things that comes through in the diaries, as if we needed to know this. Fauci has since those days denied that he ever favored lockdowns. That he was never, he never did anything to cause the schools to close, that he himself wanted the schools to open and so on. He says these things, okay, that claim is is belied by these diaries. Just again and again and again. This is a man who's just, there weren't enough lockdowns for him. Any time a state would reopen, he would work with Deborah Birx to try to figure out a way

to make the delay the reopening or make it more complicated or put things in the way of going back to normalcy. You know, you get the sense of a guy who's just become in a strange sense, in love with his power and the power he had was his protection against too much looking into the question of the lab leak. And for him, the only endgame he really had in his mind, the only endpoint was vaccinating 80 to 90 percent of the population. And when he could get to that point, then he could declare that the shots would save the country. And And he was really, in many ways, the father of the shot.

So he can protect his image for all of history. I think that was the objective from the beginning. And would that be proved impossible? He couldn't get to those levels because of the variance, because of the mutations, because every time a new booster would come out, people were growing in skepticism. In fact, it's really interesting, when you get into the fall. of 2020, sorry, 2022, you'll see that Fauci starts reporting that more and more people are claiming that he's such a divisive figure that his influence is not translating into more shot

uptake, but was actually having a reverse effect. So he starts getting pressure from people who wanted more uptake for the boosters, for the first boost, or the second booster. The therapy is. Maybe you need to leave the spotlight because you have grabbed so much the spotlight and you're the main voice for vaccination. A lot of people are trying to really doubt your credibility. So maybe you need to be kind of shoved off to the side. So I think this is one of his motivations for attorney his resignation at the end of 22.

I think there's an element that you get this slight hint that he might have been pushed off the scene. So one thing that just strikes me here is there was this time in, you know, when the Delta variant is coming out and they're realizing they have, the variants are outrunning the ability to produce the correct vaccine. So they start, you know, doing the boosters, right? The sort of modified, modified boosters. and this has to be done with haste or at speed. And I'm wondering, you know, one of the routes, at least from people I've interviewed, of the vaccine injury was that some of the impurities within some of these shots, like the endotoxin and things like that that remained.

This hasn't been measured terribly well yet, was one of the sources of the injury that happened. You know, that stuff should never have been in vials in the first place. It would have been less injury without it. I'm wondering, listening to this, it made me think, you know, it was this kind of breakneck speed that needed to be to be achieved that perhaps contributed to just, you know, this imperfect manufacturing component. I had... It would make perfect sense. You know, if you read Donald Henderson's book about the history of smallpox vaccination and how that we ended up eradicating that virus. It's a book about the mistakes they made in manufacturing and in distribution.

It's extremely difficult to administer a clean vaccine. And he talks about this, a great length. So imagine doing this at, as you say, breakneck speed. It seems, it would be incredible if they're going to be incredible if they're going to be. There weren't grave errors in the manufacturing process. But he just had really no concern for that at all. I'll tell you somebody else that really shocked me in the diaries that among so many things.

By the way, one of the reasons it's difficult to talk about these diaries is there's so many disparate points, and we are looking at a kind of a narrative history from the point of view of a single person. I've described it elsewhere. It's like reading Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but only getting Mr. Hyde's point of view. It's a strange read.

But one of the things I guess, maybe I should have known this, but I don't think I knew that when the very first booster came out, the FDA opposed it. And this is where you get the resignations of the top two vaccinologists. That's right. And that the CDC opposed it. And so there wasn't anybody in favor of this, that everybody was worried on a number of grounds.

How do you know this one's not going to be outrun by the new variant, which in fact, of course, it was? How do we know that more the same shot is not going to drive the mutations? What if shot after shot after shot actually ends up creating what's called original antigenetic send, which is that rewires your immune system to be maybe resistant to this one spike? and so you had show some antibody tiders from that shot, but now the rest of your immune system has been sort of disabled to all kinds of other dangers. Like, how do we know this?

It was not tested. It was just dumped on the world. And Fauci makes it very clear that it was kind of an industrial, political, and he was involved with this, overriding of the scientific experts, even in the agencies themselves, the CDC and the FDA. They didn't want this. They thought this was reckless, but FACCHO wouldn't be stopped.

It was just one thing after another. One of the points you did not mention, Poucher for the first time reports, that he had a blood clot leading to a pulmonary injury infection. That's brand new. And there's every reason to assume that this was a vaccine injury. So remarkable. Just remarkable, you know, that he himself was actually injured.

He reports this in the autobiography, but nobody, nobody know about that. I mean, clearly he didn't, he doesn't portray it that way. No, but there's no reason for him to think. There's no reason about it. I've talked to doctors who deal with these things all the time. There's nothing in Fauci's health history that would have indicated that at that moment, he would have suddenly had a pulmonary infraction. There was a tremendous amount of injury, especially with people in the highest

stress situations, like sports, people on camera a lot. I mean, the heart has to work really hard and has been some sense injured by the shot, then it gives out. So, and I, at the time, I myself was unwilling to recognize the possible, I didn't ever think the shots would be effective. That was just kind of what I learned from my reading of virology, I never imagined they would be, it turned out to be actually dangerous. And I remember at the time talking to a person who, but none of us wanted the shots be dangerous.

We all wanted to believe otherwise and asking about, you know, how many sports stars were just dropping all over the place and how many very prominent people were, at the same moment, just seemingly injured with the same kind of descriptions of injuries and asking, do you think this has anything to do with these shots? And the answer came back to me, I'm afraid so. I remember when I heard that answer, it just sent chills down my spine.

I thought, wow, that's remarkable. So, Jeffrey, as we finish up, let's go back to the Pentagon Papers and how this is such an unbelievably important information trove, a set of documents in your mind, and just kind of the bigger, pulling it out from Dr. Fauci himself and these types of things like what justify that for me.

We need to understand what might have been the orthodox history of this calamity in our lives. And let's just be clear, it was a calamity. Everybody, you know, has a story of division within the family, within their communities, their shattered businesses, the learning loss. The workforce disruption was a period of great calamity. And when he has something like that, the question is, what is the story behind it? And I think the official story for a number of years has been should go something like this. We had a spillover virus as a result of industrialization, too much business or whatever in the

world, climate change, I don't know what you want to call it, that led to a virus getting out. China dealt with it well. The U.S. tried to copy, but we had too much, too many, too much resistance at home to the compliance, but fortunately the shots came along and enough people took them and eventually the pandemic ended thanks to the pharmaceutical product and thanks to the lockdowns copied from the CCP experience with the virus. And thanks to the experts and the science. That is the story that we have been told by the mainstream media, by major medical journals, by all the Commanding Heights have wanted us to believe that.

This diary makes that story impossible. It's utterly inconsistent with everything that the loudest and strongest and most compelling voice in the English-speaking world during the pandemic response was saying in his own autobiography. He tells a very different story that utterly shreds that orthodox historiography. And it forces even people who wanted to keep telling that story to tell a different story. That's why I think it is so significant. It utterly shatters what I think the established, the story that the establishment wanted to tell. It makes that impossible,

which is why I'm so desperate for everybody to read these things. I want people to sit down and go entry by entry and enter into the mind and world of Anthony Fauci, to follow him day by day, to get a much clearer picture of what actually happened. I'm not sure even I know the full story about exactly what happened. I think I have a greater sense of it as a result of the diaries. But that's why I think it's so important. It has changed the story completely. It makes the old version of the pandemic orthodoxy an impossible fairy tale

that's not rooted in any, even the firsthand accounts of the most famous, most trusted scientist of the time there, who is Anthony Fauci. Well, Jeffrey Tucker, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. So good to be here, Jan. Thank you. Thank you all for joining Jeffrey Tucker and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Janja Kellek.