Select Page

Dr. Fauci & NIH Director Plotted “devastating takedown” of 3 Prominent Epidemiologists With Alternate Plan To Fight COVID

Dr. Fauci & NIH Director Plotted “devastating takedown” of 3 Prominent Epidemiologists With Alternate Plan To Fight COVID

Almost from the outset of the Wuhan Lab virus, Dr. Anthony Fauci was under fire for flip-flopping on the relevance of wearing face masks, how the virus is spread, and social distancing rules.


As multiple doctors and hospitals revealed success with treating COVID patients with inexpensive drugs like hydroxychloroquine and anti-parasitic medicine, Ivermectin, the media joined Dr. Fauci and Democrat lawmakers to mock them for touting the benefits of the life-saving medication. Big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter slapped “fake news” and “misleading” labels on articles posted by users that discussed alternative medicines and vitamins to fight the Wuhun virus pandemic. Their paid third-party censorship teams shut down discussions about alternative treatments on their platforms and punished users who promoted anti-lockdown rallies.

You soon had coordination between Fauci and Big Tech to censor any news that was not to Fauci’s liking or did not carry the dictations of the Democrats in treatment of this disease. Thus you had the complete politicization of medicine.

Recently, Dr. Fauci found himself in hot water when Senator Rand Paul called for the NIAID director’s resignation during his appearance before the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. Sen. Rand Paul has been a frequent critic of Fauci’s’, believing that he played a role in spreading COVID by funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. “The facts are clear. The NIH made fund gain of function research in Wuhan despite your protestations,” said Paul, claiming that Fauci’s’ “persistent denials … are not simply a stain on your reputation but are a clear and present danger to the country and the world.”

At 0censor would go a step further; we feel that Big Tech and their censorship of any ideas that don’t agree with today’s political views in treating covid is a threat to the world as much, if not worse, than what Fauci is doing. To politicize science has most likely killed far more than was needed; Big Tech and the Left have much blood on their hands.

Big Tech and their censorship of any ideas that don’t agree with today’s political views in treating covid is a threat to the world as much, if not worse, than what Fauci is doing. To politicize science has most likely killed far more than was needed; Big Tech and the Left have much blood on their hands.

Senator Paul went on to accuse Fauci of changing the definition of gain-of-function, saying, “There’s the preponderance of evidence now points towards this coming from the lab and what you’ve done is change the definition on your website to try to cover your ass.” Fauci denied the Senator’s accusations, including that the NIH is still supporting research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Sen. Paul pressed him further, saying, “You won’t admit that it’s dangerous. And for that lack of judgment, I think it’s time that you resign”.

Today, multiple emails between Dr. Anthony Fauci and former NIH Director Francis Collins were released showing a coordinated effort to take down three prominent epidemiologists, possibly placing Fauci in the hot seat, once again.

According to the Daily Mail, Dr. Fauci and the head of the National Institute of Health (NIH) colluded on the way to discredit an alternative plan to deal with COVID from a group of experts, released emails reveal.

The emails, some of which were tweeted out on Saturday by Phil Magness, senior research faculty and interim research and education director at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), show Fauci and Francis Collins attempting to coordinate a ‘devastating takedown’ of the Great Barrington Declaration.

In an October 8 email from Collins to Fauci, the head of the NIH calls the GBD the work of ‘three fringe epidemiologists’ that ‘seems to be getting a lot of attention.’

NIH Director Francis Collins adds that ‘there needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don’t see anything like that online yet – is it underway?’

The “three fringe epidemiologists” Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, an epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations; Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

AIER, a libertarian think tank, sponsored the declaration, largely abandoning lockdowns in favor of a herd immunity strategy that allows life to return to normal.

Later in the day, Fauci sends Collins a Wired op-ed that refutes the notion of herd immunity stopping the pandemic.

Collins then sends Fauci an op-ed in The Nation, also trashing the GBD.

Fauci sends him along another op-ed from The Nation Magazine trashing the Great Barrington Declaration

A few days later, Collins emails Fauci a Washington Post op-ed he’s quoted in headlined ‘Proposal to hasten herd immunity to the coronavirus grabs White House attention but appalls top scientists.’

Collins – working under former President Donald Trump at the time – said, ‘my quotes are accurate but will not be appreciated in the [White House].’

Fauci responds: ‘They are too busy with other things to worry about this. What you said was entirely correct.’

Later, Gregg Gonsalves – the writer of The Nation op-ed – sends Collins an email thanking him with a subject line that includes saying legendary AIDS activist Larry Kramer ‘would be proud.’

Collins responds with a smiley face.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya tweeted about the leaked emails, saying: “So now I know what it feels like to be the subject of a propaganda attack by my government. Discussion and engagement would have been a better path.”


The Great Barrington Declaration:  

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their homes. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick, should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport, and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

While we at 0censor do not give medical advice, we would not attempt to; we aren’t qualified to do such a thing, the control of opposing views, blocking any information, even from the top scientists in the field, is unacceptable.

If this information has been withheld and social access is cut off, we should look at how many lives could have been lost due to this lack of access for professionals. When this is found, look to the perpetrators for criminal prosecution.

We do not feel this should stop with government workers and physicians who were part of this, but leaders in Big Tech who have actively worked to censor medical data because it did not fit their agenda. This is not a simple matter of a difference of opinion; this should be a criminal matter when deaths have happened because of this lack of information.

Science depends on the flow of information; many times, you need to have conflicting or opposing views to check your work. When you cut off this flow, you risk creating something not based on science instead putting forth something based on political expediency.


This seems to be where we are at now. It does not matter what subject, climate warming, general science, or Covid; everything is now being forced on us tainted with a political lens; this is not science. This is propaganda made to look like science. If the government and Big Tech were really about science, they would open themselves up to opposing views, let them be tried, and either passed forward or rejected by experts; this is not what we have now.

Thanks to the Daily Mail and 100% Fed up who contributed to this article.

We at 0censor run off of your goodwill; with the Holidays upon us, we are once more raising funds to continue our services into the following year. We only ask that you give what you can, this business is one of love, but anything you can donate helps!

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Christmas-Giving-1024x239.png

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

Visit Our Sponsors

Visit Our Sponsors