…the annihilating recognition of our complete ignorance came down upon me like a sledge hammer….



Without an admission of ignorance, nothing can be learnt or discovered. But modern science, which has become an adjunct of the state, cannot admit its ignorance. Such an admission would destroy the authority of the “scientist” as state official. Therefore, when confronted with a new problem for which he is ill-equipped, the science bureaucrat pretends to be knowledgeable, and concocts a plausible discourse. (He has even been known to concoct “scientific” results that are anything but scientific.)

A politician who claims to be a “scientist,” like Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), takes up a “scientific” pose, even though science is not a pose. He pretends to absolute knowledge, even though science is made of doubts more than certainties. If science is the pursuit of truth, politics is not. Politics is the pursuit of power. The two pursuits do not go together. They are antagonistic. And Dr. Fauci cannot pursue both.

In a science bureaucracy, like the NIH or CDC, the bureaucrat eschews transparency. He covers up his “scientific” mistakes. As a politician he cannot be honest about the limits of science. His power depends on projecting a false image of perfection in “settled science.” He would not want it known that scientists make mistakes — that their theories are frequently discredited. In fact, science sometimes gropes its way through a succession of mistaken theories. But the bureaucrat cannot admit this. Such an admission would be damaging to the prestige of his bureaucracy. The tenure of the bureaucrat would be short-lived if his mistaken theories should be proven wrong. To maintain his tenure, he must never be proved wrong; and he has the administrative power — through government funding of research — to preserve the appearance of infallibility. Therefore, with Fauci’s long tenure at NIH, we should not be surprised to find that scientific research (under its auspices) has been stifled, that discoveries have been suppressed. (Consider the case of Judy Mikovits, described in her book, Plague of Corruption.)

The history of Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institutes of Health is a story of scientific fraud, political pandering, coverups and abuse of power; — of honest scientists ruined and epidemics wrongly addressed; of diseases attributed to the wrong causal agents, and cures that kill. You will find this history in the writings of Charles Ortleb, Judy Mikovits, Peter Duesberg, John Lauritsen and Hillary Johnson — to name but a few. You would be shocked by this history, except that it logically follows from the principle that science and politics do not go together; that when you mix them, science comes out corrupted.

It is a paradox for government to say what is science. True science can only arise outside the corrupting structures of power. Just as power and the games of power drive out affection, it likewise drives out truth. The Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt famously wrote, “Power is evil.” It is one of the least understood lessons of history. For in our shallow assessment of things, we value power without realizing its morality-bending propensities. 

Science is not a thing on which a bureaucracy can ever be predicated. True science belongs to the soul alone, and exists in a particular quality of mind. It would be a blessing if such a mind prevailed in politics; but now, in evil times, such minds are far and few between. The bureaucratic game, meanly played by the mean-of-spirit, now belongs to the Anthony Faucis of the world. It is their time — a time of half-truths and half-baked theories imposed as dogma. The present age belongs to the bureaucrats, and falls to ruin at their hands. 

The crisis of the hour requires great leadership, animated by genuine insight. To arrive at genuine insight, a leader would have to be an independent person, free to think for himself. It is this quality that is least likely to appear in today’s “leaders”; for independence is fragile in an age of bureaucratic dependencies. When every scientist must ask where his funding comes from, then every scientist must accommodate the powers-that-be; that is to say, the bureaucratic powers. 

At what point does the surrender of independent thought occur? At what point does mankind surrender to the petty tyranny of the bureaucrats? For this is what bureaucracies aim at. They foster dependence and thereby diminish the spirit and mind of man. The bureaucrat, in his role as functionary, signifies a belittlement of man. The bureaucrat literally makes us in his image; that is, small — reducing us to dependence. It may be more than coincidental, in this regard, that Anthony Fauci is an outlandishly small man, as if Providence made him an exemplar. The bureaucrat who diminishes man, who diminishes entire economies, is himself a diminutive specimen.

The belittlement of man, of course, is the object of bureaucracy’s ideological corollary, better known as socialism. The core indecency of totalitarian socialism — the purest form of bureaucratic tyranny — is its hatred of independent thought and its diabolical insight into the fragile character of man’s intellectual independence. The mind of man, says Marxism, is “epiphenomenal.” It is not worthy of independence. Therefore, says the Marxist, let us embrace the annihilation of the “bourgeois illusion” of truth. What takes the place of bourgeoise truth? Bureaucratic dictate conveniently defined as whatever the Party bureaucrat says.

We are now obeying the health bureaucracy, counting on its scientific acumen. But do they know what they are doing? Are lockdowns going to save us from a contagious pandemic? Or will the lockdowns, at best, postpone an inevitable calamity at backbreaking cost? The honest answer to this and other questions can only come out of real science; not out of the ideological gurglings of right and left. Here we find traffickers in false promises and false hopes. Such will always lead to quarreling. But we cannot afford to quarrel at this time. We cannot afford the indulgence of a civil war. 

Professor Dechend’s “annihilating recognition of … complete ignorance” should be our point of departure for discussing the pandemic. But almost nobody takes this position, which is the only genuinely scientific position. The health bureaucracy has made many mistakes during the present crisis, and is not likely to accept criticism. A spirit of blind rebellion, on the other side, is growing ever stronger. The problem of bureaucratic government, unchecked by the usual parliamentary mechanisms, leads to the problem of mass disobedience and a collapse of confidence. 

Is there any way to solve the problem? First, we must face up to the reality of scientific fraud across many disciplines. We must develop competent mechanisms to check the bureaucrats of science and restore public confidence. Unless we deal with this problem through open scientific discourse, we are going to fail. 

And time is running out. 


From John Lauritsen’s report on Fauci’s confrontation with Dr. Peter Duesberg over the cause of the AIDS epidemic at the 1988 amfAR Forum, found in his book, Poison by Prescription, p. 168: “I am more convinced than ever that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. If HIV advocates [Anthony Fauci] were sure of their hypothesis, they would want to enlighten Duesberg and the rest of us; they would want to publish their arguments in a proper scientific journal complete with references. They would not need to resort to stonewalling, deception, and personal abuse.”

From page 39 of Charles Ortleb’s book, Fauci: The Bernie Madoff of Science and the HIV Ponzi Scheme that concealed the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Epidemic: “Scientific totalitarianism is the background music of Anthony Fauci’s brilliant and long-lasting Ponzi Scheme. A so-called liberal democracy like America demands a covert form of scientific totalitarianism that does not scare the horses of oversight and public opinion. Fauci knew how to manipulate the levers of institutional power and image-making in ways that Bernie Madoff would envy. For a scientific Ponzi scheme to prevail in America and Europe, nobody must recognize that they have acquiesced to a major and scientific fraud. Doctors must follow protocols established by the HIV/AIDS Ponzi scheme and patients must not question them. Sanctions should stand at the ready if they do. Nobody must see the telltale signs of fraud, deceit, and censorship. Fauci knew the tricks required to turn ivy-league-educated journalists into servile puppets and perky stenographers…. A long list of servile journalists who were chummy with Fauci and enabled his Ponzi scheme will have a lot to answer for.” (Note: Ortleb has discovered, in moralistic prejudice and the bureaucratic drive for power, a psychological mechanism of intellectual, political and scientific corruption which knows no bounds. His points deserve careful consideration.)

From Judy Mikovits’s Plague of Corruption, p. 92: “There are three people I place in what Frank Ruscetti calls the Unholy Trinity of Science,’ and they are Harold Varmus, Francis Collins, and Tony Fauci. Whenever you ask yourself why the truth hasn’t been told in a critical area of public health, you’ll probably find the fingerprints of these men at the crime scene.”

JRN: I have given three representative quotes about Fauci from three different sources, suggestive of his reputation among those who have studied him closely.

34 thoughts on “Politics as the Negation of Science: The Case Against Anthony Fauci

  1. I tried to comment on the post about back-dating but was told there was no such page. I love Dr. Mikovits and notic she is sensored from so-called conservative forums. Big pharma very powerful, suppressing known inexpensive cures and treatments.

  2. Government corrupts everything it mingles with, doesn’t it? I naturally try to defer to the experts in fields I know nothing about, but I’ve experienced a gradual, increasing mistrust of Dr. Fauci. It’s exasperating that everything has to be politicized, propagandized, and exploited nowadays. I think I’m going to buy Plague of Corruption and take a dive down the rabbit hole.

  3. In the wake of Gramsci’s Long March through the Institutions, the Left has long since left science vandalized and corrupted.

    Now, “science” often lacks any resemblance to its mandate (i.e., the search for truth in the natural world), and has become whatever the Left says it is and needs it be and to stand for.

    We should approach claims of “science” with unflagging skepticism.

  4. There is only one kind of “science” involved when a $4.95 bottle of five hundred prescription pills (Clorazepate 7.5mg) are jacked up to $495.95 overnight.
    And that is the “science” of greed.
    Nope, late 80s.
    Been going on a long time, a long long time.

  5. The “expert” bureaucrat is indeed a strange and dangerous animal, in fact he is the ultimate totalitarian. He corrupts and bends true science according to his ideological will and abuses his power to ram it all down everbody’s throats. Dare question his findings? Remember Senator McCarthy, who was told: “Have you left no sense of decency?”

  6. In some ways, the best means to address the phony science may be with the Null Hypothesis, in which the person presenting that hypothesis is basically saying “prove it”. If nothing of substance can be provided to substantiate the claims being made, then nothing has been proved, and they are left with empty words and false allegations.
    The 60s seems to have been the time in which science decided to associate itself with politics, not because it advanced science, but because it provided money for research that would otherwise never receive any funding. The term political science is far more of an oxymoron than military intelligence ever was, yet now it has earned a niche within the Colleges and Universities and has been given a modicum of credibility that it has not earned.
    Science is losing a lot of ground with the general public, as science has been willing to back too many scams and hoaxes in order to get monetary considerations in return, too many of which have come to the attention of the general public. In some regards, if science is not careful, it will find itself along with used car salesmen and ambulance chasers as something to jeered, rather than be respected.

  7. A few thoughts on the “blind rebellion” you mentioned briefly.

    While socialism, and technocrats, and others of like mind seek to diminish Man, there is a rising number of people who seek to correct the present state of affairs who will be engaging in an over-correction.

    While the fear among “conspiracy theorists” has long been that power has been (and continues to be) taken from the many and given to the few, there is another camp that wants to take power from the few (“the 1%”) and give it to the many that we also need to be wary of. I think of Antifa; I think of the Occupy groups; I think of Anonymous; I think of those who would put Man on a pedestal of holiness and worship; I think of “Q Anon” groupies who want to see all evil men who currently have the reins of power in their grasp taken down, and replaced with… perfect men, who can wield power justly and with no ill effect?

    Does this not bring to mind the warning Tolkein gave us in his Ring trilogy? At the council where the creatures of the West discussed what to do with the One Ring of power they currently possessed, there were some who wanted to use the ring for the their cause, which was right and just. “Think of the good we could do, especially in the war against the Dark Lord!” was the reasoning. But Gandalf warned that such great power as existed in the ring, even if in the hands of well-meaning people, has a way of bending the will back toward evil in the end, and it would corrupt even the most benevolent of hearts.

    What concerns me currently is that the taste for blood among conservatives, Christians, and others who would be rid of the evil “powers that be” will be a catalyst to establish a “good” power base, where the “NWO and it’s evil cabal” are turned out, and in their place is a kinder, gentler evil that looks good on the surface, but will lead many astray. It will be a democratic, popular, worldwide, “for the people of the earth” rebellion led by an angel of light.

      1. Jeff, could you at some point in time elaborate on this “from all sides”?

    1. Marlkolinux, indeed all in the world are tainted. the closest we can obtain to minimum degrees of compromise and taintedness is within the hearts and minds of those who love God in Christ—as one yoked to the Lord, these are possibly capable of straddling the fence of truth and power. Yes all men are tainted by sin and corruptability, however shrugging the shoulders and saying all is for nought, and that everything good will be taken over by darkness leads us to a terrible place of non-action. My 2-cents….we need to keep watch and encourage those who are leading in right directions–but trust and verify.

    2. With the “Body of Christ” having been divided against itself, either a healing needs to take place ending that division, or a time will come when all Christians will have to go underground in order to exist, just as it was in the early days of Christianity.

  8. There will always be war of some sort either spiritual or carnal. It started in the Garden of Eden. There also is no utopia. That also started in the Garden of Eden. This sets the tone for the debate.

    So now the question is: What type of society do you want to live in?

    A society where men and women are free but will do evil sometimes? This is messy. You will need to defend yourself. You will need to punish heavily and not let out of prison because of a plague those who do evil. But you are free to pursue happiness.

    Or do you want to live under a Despot who controls even your thought and everything in between? This is more ordered. Less chance of open evil. But the State has your soul and all reason to live is diminished. Creativity is stifled. The younger generation sees the evil so this type of system is desirable to them until a certain point unless they have been sufficiently brainwashed.

    The Republicans and Christians don’t want blood. We just want to be free and left alone with the ability to defend ourselves against evil. It’s the Democrats that want to take this freedom in their ever lust for power. There is where the friction lies. It is that simple.

  9. Mr. Nyquist, I am very grateful for the information you present here. Could you point me in the direction of a scientific, knowledgeable person who is speaking about the future of this “inevitable calamity,” as you call it.


    1. The institutions of all the countries of the West are using lockdowns and/or social distancing yourself avoid the calamity of millions of deaths worldwide. Do I actually have to cite sources? President Trump claims to have saved over a million Americans by the measures taken. My question is, how are they saved? The virus is still there. It’s progress is only delayed — not stopped.

      1. I think you misunderstand me. Are there any educated persons proscribing alternatives to lockdown or blanket social distancing measures whom you could point me to and which you believe are better?


      2. The internet is full of alternate views. I have listened to many. I have no idea if any are better. All that I have listened to seem scientifically qualified, yet all smell of a particular ideology (left or right). I trust none of them. Scientific truth is non-ideological.

  10. Jeff, not sure if you can comment, I do apologize if the comment is not related to the article as there is some news from the National People’s Congress. The Chinese Communist Party has enacted legislation which is called the National Security Law, in effect the Chinese Communist Party has decided to bypass the Hong Kong Legislative Council when implementing the National Security Law. The Chinese Communist Party has also indicated there will be a crackdown on Hong Kong. Also there is also now a change of sentiment within the people who took part in the Hong Kong Protest last year, some of them are now finding out they have been used and also what is now happening is that the Chinese Communist Party has declared that One Country Two Systems does not exist anymore. This is a sign that the Chinese Communist Party is intending to have Hong Kong become part of the Mainland early or have it go through an early reunification


    1. If the CCP does what you have stated, then we can be assured that as much of the financial interests in Hong Kong will leave and set up business elsewhere. That will make Hong Kong just another CCP backwater, which will devastate the Chinese economy. Even if those interests stay, much of the rest of the financial would will pull their money out, and Hong Kong will be just a shadow of what it has been for a long time.
      Xi is evidently making the “Mao” move to make sure all of mainland China is completely under his control. Doing so will be the biggest mistake he has made, and will probably end his reign as leader of the CCP.

    2. With the Chinese sacrificing the economic value of Hong Kong in favor of suppressing dissidents and alternate news for Chinese people, and also with the Chinese today pushing 3Km into Indian territory today, it seems to me these are all signs of impending war.

    3. Beijing apparently intends to roll back the entire NEP strategy of Mr. Deng, and with it the rich princelings not only of the Hu Jintao faction, but also those of Jiang Zemin. This shows Xi to be a Stalin-like figure in Chinese politics, who will now veer left as he prepares the country for war.

      1. If Xi does make that sort of move, there has to be a relatively good chance that there will be enough internal strife in the CCP that he could be overthrown for a more moderate leader. At least it would seem that way.

      2. I would not trust any so-called moderate communists in China. We have been playing that game a long time, and here we are. Let’s not make the same mistake over and over and over again.

  11. Science? What is science?

    Back when I studied science at the university, there was only one definition for “science”, one that had been around for centuries and under which science had gotten its caché of excellence.

    Then starting in the mid 1970s reaching full strength in the 1980s certain popular theories among “scientists” teaching at universities were demonstrated as not being scientific at all, according to that centuries old definition of science. Most notable among those popular theories shown not to be scientific was Darwinian evolution. Rather than admit that Darwinian evolution is not a scientific theory, those university ideologues resorted to changing the definition of “science”. There are at least four definitions I have seen, including the one I was originally taught.

    The attack on the science I was taught is driven by ideology, an ideology that is opposed to Christianity and the Bible. The government bureaucracy has been captured by those who hold to that ideology. While the ideologues change the definition of “science”, they are dishonest because they claim they’re not changing its definition.

    One can accuse Dr. Fauci of scientific fraud only under the definition of science I was taught at the university. With the definition of “science” being changed according to the whim of the “scientists”, who’s to say that what Dr. Fauci is doing is not good science?

    What do you mean when you say “science”?

  12. The simple fact is that people need to make a living even in time of war with bullets flying. The Bill Of Rights isn’t a wish list. Use it or lose it.

    1. The country was subverted long ago. (I hope you noticed.) The few of us who attempted to raise a cry of alarm were scorned as kooks and ignored. The conservatives, of course, declared victory in the Cold War. It was a stupid claim to make. The business “community” was eager to trade with Communist China. Our pundits and politicians believed the Russian lies of 1991. There was no victory whatsoever. Communism was moving forward the whole time. Now, at long last, we may be defeated in a hot war. You think the lockdown is bad? Our enemies are inside our citadel. It is not a question of rights, now. It is a question of existence. Will we exist, as a country, in three years time? People want to return to the comfortable ways of the last thirty years. Not likely. Watch China. Watch North Korea. Watch Russia. These countries are getting ready for war. Isn’t it apparent?

  13. Jeff, not sure if you can comment, the National People’s Congress has approved the National Security Legislation for Hong Kong. The Chinese Communist Party is now openly taking over Hong Kong and is now officially saying that the One Country Two Systems Arrangement no longer exists. Another thing I would like to let you know, people in Hong Kong who post on Twitter are now condemning the Hong Kong Democracy Movement/Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Camp in assisting the Chinese Communist Party.


    On May 24 and 27, the Hong Kong Democracy Movement/Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Camp or Pan-Democrats were exposed in assisting the Chinese Communist Party’s Intelligence Agency, the Ministry of State Security in orchestrating the Protests on May 24 and 27.



Comments are now closed.