The self described practicing doctor was a big fan of naturally acquired immunity when the wind was blowing one way. But now it's shot after shot after shot. Booster upon booster. What changed?
Here's a bit. Thanks to our friend over at substack The Vigilant Fox.
During Wednesday’s Senate Committee hearing on monkeypox, Senator Rand Paul played a famous Fauci video from 2004 that has gone viral in recent months. Here’s what he said back then.
“She doesn’t need it [the flu vaccine] because the most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself.”
So Rand Paul made these comments to Fauci:
“Currently, antibody surveys show that approximately 80% of children have had COVID, and yet there are no guidelines coming from you or anybody in the government to take into account their naturally-acquired immunity. You seem quite certain of yourself in 2004, but in 2022, there’s a lot less certainty. One of the things that we also know after looking at this for two to three years is that the mortality from COVID is very similar, if not less than that influenza. So when we look at this, we wonder, why you seem to really embrace basic immunology back in 2004 and why you seem to reject it now.”
“Well, I don’t reject basic immunology, Senator. And I have never denied that there is importance of the protection following infection. However, as we have said many times, and as has been validated by the authorization of the by the FDA, through their committee, and the recommendation by the CDC through their committee, that a vaccination following infection gives an added, extra boost.And that film that you showed is really taken out of context.
I believe that was when someone called in who had a reaction to a vaccine and asked me through a telephone in the interview if they should get vaccinated again. So it was in the context of someone who had a reaction. And as a matter of fact, Reuters fact check looked at that and said, ‘Fauci's 2004 comments do not contradict his pandemic —”
“Actually, words don't lie. If you look at the words behind me, we could go [through] them a little bit at a time. ‘She doesn't need it because the most potent vaccination is getting infected yourself.’”
See how the fauch even after hearing what his exact words were, he changed what he said.
From most potent to very potent. Words do matter.
Paul with the last word.
“When you’re trying to tell us that kids need a third or a fourth vaccine, are you including the variability or the variable of previous infection in the studies? No, you’re not. Because when you have approved vaccines in recent times, and the committees that have approved for children don’t report anything on hospitalization, death, or transmission. They only report that if you give them the jab, they’ll make antibodies. And you can give kids hundreds of jabs, and they’ll make antibodies every time, but that does not prove efficacy.
So what you’re doing is denying the very fundamental premise of immunology that previous infection does provide some sort of immunity. It’s not in any of your studies! Almost none of your studies from the CDC or from the government have the variable of whether or not you’ve been previously infected…If you ignore whether they’ve been infected. You’re ignoring a vaccine, basically, so you’re ignoring a variable. You decry, and people decry vaccine hesitancy; it’s coming from the gobbledygook that you give us. You’re not paying attention to the science! The very basic science is that previous infection provides a level of immunity.
If you ignore that in your studies, if you don’t present that in your committees, you’re not being truthful or honest with us.”