Politics of Pandemic–Breaking Down the Fauci Emails

Standard

Recently, through the Freedom of Information Act, by request of Washington Post and BuzzFeed News, a trove of Dr. Fauci’s emails have been released and the revelations therein causing a great uproar online.  On one side there’s the “I told you so” crowd doing their victory lap. While, on the other side, is the supposedly unbiased ‘fact-checkers’ and corporate media denial professionals trying to argue that there’s nothing to see here. 

So, is Dr. Fauci a national hero, a seasoned expert who helped the nation navigate a crisis, or should his head be on a pike?  

Let’s start with who Dr. Fauci is and why he is the focus of national attention…

Doctor in the Spotlight

Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., was born in Brooklyn, NY, on December 24, 1940, to parents who operated a pharmacy in the city, his grandparents were immigrants, he was raised Catholic and now considers himself to be a humanist.  He was a standout basketball player in the private Jesuit high school he attended, went to Holy Cross University for pre-med, and then attended Cornell University’s Medical School.  He married Christine Grady, in 1985, who is described as “an American nurse and bioethicist” in Wikipedia, and they have three daughters.

Dr. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, a role he has served since 1984, through seven presidencies and, while a respected figure in his field of immunology, had not garnered much public attention prior to the emergence of Covid-19.

In early 2020 Fauci was selected to be part of the Trump administration’s White House Coronavirus Task Force (now serves as Biden’s chief medical advisor) and very quickly was singled out by the corporate media for his sometimes seemingly contrarian positions with the President.  If anything, his elevated role and becoming the face of the pandemic response has more to do with partisan politics of those desirous use him as a foil against President Trump than it does with anything else.  Even Fauci himself, in the emails, seemed confused about his new celebrity status. 

There were many stories lauding Fauci.  There is no indication that he wanted to become the public figure he has become.  He did not have the power to tell states what to do.  But now, because he was portrayed as this unquestionable expert, he has become symbolic of the shutdowns and mask mandates to many Americans.  Fame, even if unasked for, is a two-edged sword.  One can quickly transition from hero to heel once the spotlight begins to reveal their blemishes.  By putting Fauci front and center of the Covid response, the partisans have given us ample reason to scrutinize just who he is.

I personally, as someone with a sister who is a medical doctor and another who is a nurse, I am also not comfortable with many of those trashing Fauci’s reputation.  I’m equally opposed to demonizing him or trying him in the court of public opinion.  That said, as one who has some life experience, I also understand the value of second opinions when it comes to medical interventions.  Fauci’s opinion should have been considered one of many, as part of a task force, and should never have been positioned as a rival to the President.  That was dirty politics, completely a media creation, and likely hurt the pandemic response. 

The Politics of Pandemic 

Ideally, in times of national crisis, where many lives are at risk, partisan politics would’ve been put aside and the nation would rally behind the leaders elected no matter their party affiliation.  In that world, the President, informed by various economic and medical advisors, would make the executive decisions and government agencies would do their best to put these decisions to practice.  However, in the current polarized hyper-partisan environment, and with a Presidential election looming in 2020, the pandemic was treated by many as simply another divisive political tool.

No world leader’s response to Covid-19 was perfect.  For example, had European governments followed Trump’s lead and shut down travel from China early on in the pandemic we might have had more time to prepare.  It is easy to forget, but before social distancing and shutdowns became vogue, many social elites were minimizing the threat and calling Trump a racist for warning the world about the virus.  In Italy, for example, they were urging people to give hugs to Chinese people to prove their own virtue.  Our Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, urged her constituents to visit the crowded streets of Chinatown in San Fransico.

Trump was criticized for urging calm and being a cheerleader once the danger of Covid was finally realized.  And, before that, was criticized for shutting down travel from China and accused of fear-mongering for speaking out.  He could not win. He was resisted at every turn while trying to take steps to prepare and then accused of literal murder for the deaths in this country as if the world was somehow doing better.  Few here would know that the US death rate is actually lower than that of Europe, per capita, but the stories here would focus on death totals to build the image of Trump’s failure.

Fauci, on the other hand, was not allowed to be criticized.  He was praised endlessly as a representative of science, as bold and unbiased, a source of all truth and wisdom.  His word was to be treated as irrefutable, god-like, his perspectives treated as the only one that mattered, and Trump asked over and over again, “will you follow Dr. Fauci’s recommendations?”  It was presented as this horrendous thing that Trump may not take this one man’s advice on how to respond, as if there weren’t teams of other advisors to be heard and other concerns to be considered.  

Every smart patient knows to get a second opinion on serious matters.  Even the best physicians, experts in their fields, can misdiagnose or prescribe the wrong treatment.  And this idea that “following the science” means worshipping or never questioning, men like Fauci is pure ignorance. It is dangerous ignorance.

But, as ignorant, is holding Fauci to an impossible standard because others put him on a pedestal.   

On one hand, I completely understand the resentment that some hold towards this man that has come to symbolize the economic destruction brought on by state governors following Federal guidelines.  However, much of what is being said now, in wake of the released emails, is as unfair as the coverage of the previous administration.  Those against mask mandates and economic shutdowns are doing the same thing to Fauci as the corporate media propagandists did to Trump.  His comments, like Trump’s comments, are being ripped out of context by many commentators, without explanation, and that’s a problem.

Yes, some of the emails show that Fauci withheld certain ideas about the origin of the virus and was initially dismissive of masking, yet nothing I’ve seen so far is smoking-gun evidence of his wrongdoing.   Of particular interest is his involvement in funding the Wuhan lab, during the Obama administration, and whether or not this may have been a conflict of interest.  And then there is the ethical issue issue with “gain of function” research that must be explored.  My goal is to give fair treatment to the man and offer my own perspective as far as the content of the emails.

To Mask or Not To Mask?

One of the most contentious issues of the pandemic was the mask mandates.  These state level policies, following the recommendations of the Federal government, were viewed either as life saving and scientifically proven or as terrible infringements on liberty and pretty much totally ineffective. 

My own leanings, as someone who purchased a box of N95 masks in January of 2020, is that masks offer a marginal protection, if the correct type and properly used, and yet the mandates were basically useless.  First cloth masks don’t offer the level of filtration that is necessary to trap the water droplets carrying the virus.  Second, some countries required both a face shield and mask because they determined that masks alone weren’t effective.

Dr. Fauci seems to have come out against mask mandates before coming out in favor:

The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep[ing] out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location.

And also saying this:

Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection…

Now, I believe he’s right in both cases.  Masks only offer minimal protection.  Covid spread through factories where everyone wore masks and states with mask mandates really didn’t fare better than those that did not.  I understand that urge people have to “do something” and there are several flawed studies that back up the idea that masking is beneficial.  However, I really do not see evidence that it makes a significant difference.  Real life doesn’t match up with laboratory conditions.  And thus that was likely behind Fauci’s pragmatic first take.

What is a bit unfair about the criticism about this apparent reversal in opinion on masks is that we all change our minds all the time.  Sometimes I may disagree with some of my colleagues on something, state my own perspective, and then later amend as new evidence comes in.  However, what is disturbing is where Dr Fauci explains this flipflop as being protection of mask supply for medical professionals.  In other words, he is basically admitting to having lied to the American people about the effectiveness of masks.  If that is the case then he should not be given a free pass.

The ‘Debunked’ Lab Leak Theory

One of those banned topics on social media was the theory that Covid-19 may have come from the lab in Wuhan, China.  It made sense, a deadly virus emerges at a market within walking distance of Wuhan Institute of Virology, why not put that laboratory on the list of suspects?  But for some reason discussion of this possibility was forbidden until very recently when it was revealed, through US intelligence, that researchers at this lab had become ill shortly before the virus turned the surrounding city into a warzone.

The Fauci emails also reveal that this possibility, even that Covid showed signs of being engineered for “gain of function” research, were discussed.  Now, frankly, this is just good forensic science.  It would be more shocking had this never been considered at all.  And the batting this idea around alone is not proof that this is what had actually happened. 

However, that so many literally conspired, with a foreign entity, to suppress this hypothesis (Big Tech censorship stifling the online conversation, corporate media fact-checkers claiming it had been debunked, etc) should be a cause for global outrage. 

Of course, the most laughable claim of media propagandists, at the time, was that it was racist to link the virus to the Chinese Communist Party.  Nevermind this was from the same people who had no problem with taking aim at wet markets and bat soup.  But somehow that criticism of Chinese eating habits wasn’t a problem while taking a closer look at a laboratory that was studying coronavirus and bats was inappropriate. 

Uh-huh.

Anyhow, given that Fauci had come out in full support of gain of function research and also been a force behind funding the Wuhan lab.  Could it be this history explains the private discussion, in emails, and simultaneous public denial? Possibly, yes.  It is very clear there’s a conflict of interest.  Of course there’s a reason for him to keep a lid on what could be proof of his culpability for millions of deaths worldwide. 

The result of Fauci’s silence, and corporate media stupidity and bias, is that something that should have been thoroughly explored months ago is only now being openly discussed.  This has given a totalitarian regime, known for deception, more than enough time to cover up the truth and their role.  Precious time has been wasted on what could be the biggest crime against humanity in the history of humankind.  We have experienced a death toll and economic damages greater than twenty nuclear bombs, countless innocent lives destroyed, and the likely culprit was protected by a web of denial, collusion between Big Tech, the corporate media and high ranking government officials—like Dr. Fauci.

If the January 6th fracas is worthy of consideration for a Congressional Commission, then we really should dig deeper and investigate the true cause of a global pandemic that killed millions.  No, there’s no smoking gun in the Fauci emails, or least none that I could see, and yet there is more than enough reason to suspect that one of our leading experts had tried to keep a lid on the Wuhan lab theory because of his own ties to the research.  And still our corporate media speaks glowingly of him, as if he could do no wrong, the fact-checkers scurrying to tell us there is no bombshell revelation in the emails.

Dr. Fauci: Authority or Arrogant?

One thing that the pandemic has revealed and the emails only further confirmed, is the complete arrogance of our institutions.  For whatever reason Fauci and others felt it was okay to mislead the American people, to tell the so-called “noble lie,” and then they wonder why trust is waning amongst the people they’ve deliberately deceived? Meanwhile, those who should be holding their feet to the fire, our ‘journalists’ (who now also see themselves worthy to pick winners for us rather than simply report), embarrass themselves with their fauning praise.

Is Fauci the sole source of all real science and truth?

No, absolutely not!

Is he a total fraud unworthy of his position?  

Well, that is something worthy of investigation and yet to be determined. Innocent until proven guilty is still the law of the land. And I do not believe in trials in the court of public opinion. Again, while there are questions of ethics and culpability to be answered, that our corporate media should be asking rather than singing his praises, nothing in the emails implicates him of a crime.

My own thought, knowing what is known, is that making Fauci the fall guy would be letting too many others off the hook.  Sure, he represents an accountability problem with the political establishment and elites who are protected by their own interests at the expense of the American people.  No, they don’t simply “follow the science” nor are they invulnerable to group think or free from all bias.  They’re human, like us, they make mistakes, they have political agendas and hidden motivations too.  It isn’t about secret conspiracies so much as it is a matter of human fallibility, in general, and arrogance.

Over the course of the past year Fauci’s name has become synonymous with authority and science. But much of that is smoke and mirrors. He is truly only one qualified voice of many and was only made the face of the pandemic as a way to undermine Trump. This is pretty much the only reason why he is loved by one side and loathed by the other. Politics. The politics of the pandemic cloud good judgment. And those caught in this political fray deserve better than to be torn up by the mob or raised up like saints.

Fauci, given the voting patterns of NYC and government lifers, is probably as Democrat as one could be. That could explain some of the looks of tension, and tedious corrections, when Trump used his layman’s terms during press conferences. But, unlike the media narrative that constantly pitted him against the President, the emails showed this conflict between the men was massively overblown.

In the end, Dr. Fauci has the swagger of a Brooklynite, cocky or confident depending on who you ask, and amazing stamina for a man his age. But he should have never been made a celebrity, never turned into this unquestioned authority on matters of science or used as a tool of partisan politics.

Fair enough?

The Cryptocurrency Explosion

Standard

Cryptocurrency is all of the rage right now, what was once the realm of tech nerds and crazy uncles is now becoming part of the mainstream.  The maturation of this technology, as well as the attention given to it by celebrities and billionaires, combined with concern about inflationary monetary policies has created a wave of crypto mania on social media.  It is now something I’ll talk about with friends or coworkers who aren’t especially geeky.  Very soon even grandma will have a crypto wallet.

So, what is cryptocurrency?

To understand cryptocurrency one first must understand what the money in their wallet is.  Money is a store of value.  It is something developed thousands upon thousands of years ago as means of exchange and make trade easier.  If there was no money we could barter and yet that would be cumbersome.  

Imagine someone wanted two ears of corn from their neighbor and only had pigs.  Two ears of corn is worth far less than a whole pig, but it is rather difficult to divide the pig into fractions without killing the animal.  So to barter for the corn one would either need to take corn that they didn’t really want or give the pig away for far less than it’s actual value.

As a solution to this problem eventually someone got the bright idea: Let’s trade a shiny (and rare) metal in exchange for our goods rather than barter.  These metal tokens of trade would eventually become standardized coins.

In the corn and pig scenario this means that the person with the pig could sell the pig for ten coins and then buy the ears of corn without having to divide up the pig.  It was also far easier not to need both the pig and corn to be together at the same place and time.  These coins were made of non-perishable metals, could be stored and used at any time.

However, shiny metal coins are heavy and very soon institutions offered to keep the coins safe and then give the owner of the metal a special note saying that they owned the metal.  This “bank note” itself became the means of exchange.  And the banking or government institutions with the actual metal also learned that they could simply print more of the notes, without having the metal to back it, then have all of the pigs and corn that they wanted.

Thanks Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/money/11174013/The-history-of-money-from-barter-to-bitcoin.html

Paper money has value based upon trust in the system that has produced it.  Prior to a certain time, exchanging a pig or corn for paper would be sheer lunacy.  The paper in your wallet only has value that is derived from faith that it can be exchanged for things of practical value.  

So, again, what is cryptocurrency?

First and foremost, cryptocurrency, like the dollar in your wallet, is a store of value.  And it gets it’s value from the collective faith of those who believe it has value.  Like shiny metal replaced the impractical bartering of pigs and corn, like paper notes replaced heavy shiny metal, cryptocurrency is now ready to replace paper notes and for a variety of reasons.

The Federal Reserve Inflation Scam

Most people notice that the price of goods and services is always going up.  But not enough can give a good answer as for why this inflation occurs.  Some price increase is due to increase in costs, such as employee wages or more looters helping themselves to items.  There is also supply and demand, if there’s only so much land, and more people who want it, then price will price will go up as more people bid against each other for a limited resource.

However, the biggest driver of this upward trend is inflationary monetary policy or the fact that central banks continue to print more money and, right now, at an ever increasing rate.  Of course, since paper is basically worthless, the value of this new money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is your grandma’s savings account.  In the United States the Federal Reserve (a private bank) inflates the currency supply through printing, then loans this newly minted cash to the Federal government.

Need some bread?

That’s right.  The Federal Reserve (a private bank) creates money out of thin air, the value of it coming from shrinking the value of the money in your own wallet, and then loans it to the Federal government where it is distributed to the cronies of politicians, which is eventually must be paid back by taxpayers.  If this seems like a scam, you’re correct, it is.  Only those at the top benefit and then they placate you with ‘stimilus’ crumbs off their table.

Do you hear that sucking sound? That’s the sound of the value being drawn out of your savings account with every new dollar.

There are no limits to how much paper money government and their private bankster partners can print.  The more money they print the less valuable the money that you earned is worth.  They rob us blind, and then claim to have our best interests at heart when they give back some of what was taken from us.  If most people understood this, how much the current system is costing them, they would revolt and put an end to the robbery.

How does cryptocurrency work differently?

The most important thing to understand about cryptocurrency is that supply is limited.  What this means is that value, at least related to the dollar, will increase over time.  

Cryptocurrency, unlike printed money, has a set amount of virtual ‘coins’ or digital tokens that can be produced.  Bitcoin, for example, has a maximum number of coins set at 21 million.  This compared to trillions of US dollars in circulation.  And, as more dollars are produced the number of Bitcoin only decreases in relation.  And, as more people use their dollars to buy this limited supply of Bitcoin that comparative value will only continue to rise.

But what would stop Bitcoin from making more coins?

This is where things get technical, here’s what Forbes says:

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency that you can buy, sell and exchange directly, without an intermediary like a bank. Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, originally described the need for “an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust.”

Each and every Bitcoin transaction that’s ever been made exists on a public ledger accessible to everyone, making transactions hard to reverse and difficult to fake. That’s by design: Core to their decentralized nature, Bitcoins aren’t backed by the government or any issuing institution, and there’s nothing to guarantee their value besides the proof baked in the heart of the system.

The short version is that Bitcoin is not a centralized bank, not a corporation, it is a code and the security provided through blockchain technology or cryptology and direct user oversight rather than by an institution.  The transactions are the currency and it is pretty much impossible to counterfeit or fake.  Someone would need simultaneous access to every one of the digital ledgers to create more.  Even if this were possible it would cost way too much, require far too much genius, to be practical as a scheme.

The end result is that cryptocurrency is more secure.  The dollar being printed into oblivion is robbing many people blind with the inflation it produces.  Even tokens, like Dogecoin, which have a set percentage increase of supply (to make it more viable as an actual form of currency) doesn’t even come close to the amount of new dollars put into circulation every year.  What this means is that cryptocurrency will continue to increase in dollar value even if there was no increase in demand for the tokens.

Add to this the many people who are only now discovering the crypto revolution, the development of platforms like Coinbase, Webull, Robinhood and others that make it easier for retail customers, and the sky truly is the limit.  Those who missed the opportunity to become millionaires by getting into Bitcoin early now can ride on the Dogecoin phenomenon.  It is a true modern day gold rush.

What are the risks?

This blog would be incomplete without getting into the potential risks.  First of all, not all cryptocurrencies will gain value like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Dogecoin or others.  It seems likely that eventually the market will become saturated with new coins and prices will remain stagnant or even drop with established brands.  And, second, with so much new interest, there are going to be an ever growing number of straight up scams.  So, if you don’t know much, play it safe and talk to that nerdy friend before making an investment.

The other risk is that what goes up fast can also go down as fast.  Dogecoin has gone up 400% in a matter of days and could go up by the same amount in coming weeks.  And yet, sentiment could change, some of the big ‘whale’ investors could pull out with their profits, and there be the equivalent of a bank run (look at the 1920s) as those invested see a rapid decline and sell in a panic.  In the opinions of some, the gains of value amount to a speculative bubble, like the “Tulip mania” that swept the Dutch Republic in 1700s, and eventually the price will collapse.

Also, seller beware, cryptocurrency profits are taxed differently than other income and trading too often could end up putting you in a hole as the IRS demands their slice

Add to that the possibility that governments, like Turkey, fearing the loss of their currency monopolies, lost tax revenue and control over markets, will decide to crackdown and make life difficult for those already in the game. Even the threat could drive prices through the basement.

My own advice?  

1) Do not put all of your eggs in one basket, diversity is usually a strength when it comes to investments.

2) Secure profits along the way, cash out your initial investment as soon as you are able, and that way you’ll never lose.

But, most of all…

3) While seizing opportunity, always be aware of the risks and never EVER use money you need very soon.

Still, with those warnings out of the way, I believe cryptocurrency is here to stay and will be a rare opportunity for many early adopters to see tremendous gains.  It doesn’t matter what the skeptics say, what matters is that a billion people in the world (like me) do see the value of this, we don’t want to see our hard earned savings ruined by hyperinflation, and will continue to pour money into this decentralized bank of the future. 

So, dip a toe, then jump on in, the water is great, and the tide is rising!

Practical Solutions for Filipino Farmers and Market Fluctuations

Standard

Problem: Small scale Filipino farmers plant not knowing what the price will be by the time the crop is ready for harvest. When the price drops due to oversupply of vegetables the farmers barely make enough and sometimes even end up dumping their crops because the cost of transportation is greater than the value of the vegetables.

The problem is three-fold. First, it is the inability of farmers to see the whole picture of who is planting what crops, which results in overproduction and then drives market prices down. Second, it is a problem of markets being mostly local, with little to no access to other markets, this keeps prices lower. Third, there is not enough coordination between domestic farmers and government agencies that control the importation of agricultural goods.

Solution: The Department of Agriculture (Philippines) needs to study the market to find out what amount of vegetable production is needed. Once they establish a baseline, then they should come up with a voluntary program that will aid farmers in deciding what crops to plant today based on their projections of future demand.

The Department of Agriculture (Philippines) could issue a quota voucher to farmers, who had enrolled in the program, to plant crops based on the projections and granting them certain protections for if the market price does drop. In other words, if there is a market need for a particular amount of green beans then the agency could issue a proportional number of vouchers. This, assuming import controls, would stabilize the markets and prices. And, if the market price dropped anyways, abiding by the voucher system would entitle the farmer to some compensation.

Another way to get better prices for isolated farmers is to facilitate the connection to a broader market. Access to markets beyond the local region is one way to increase the value of crops produced and also to stabilize price fluctuations. Government contracted transportation and distribution could be a part of this or it could be entirely put out to bids with private contractors. The transportation costs to be offset by the better prices in the destination market, the farmer would get the voucher guarantee price and the rest would go to the transportation contractor.

This sort of analysis and organization could also be done independently of the government. But it would take a significant investment. The national government would be in a better position to facilitate this than a private entity of limited resources. That said, universities could help to develop the models of the agricultural markets necessary to determine how many vouchers should be issued for each kind of crop. It would need to be a collaborative effort. Maybe with the help of transportation cooperatives between these small-scale farmers?

And one key is to incorporate the local ‘grassroots’ input, as well, as a strictly top-down central planning agency would likely fail. Central planning generally doesn’t work and especially not when it removes the autonomy of individuals to act in their own self-interest or allow choice. Participantion would need to be voluntary and incentives market-based rather than artificial. Ideally it would be self-sustaining and entirely funded by the beneficiaries.

Finally, yes, protectionism may be bad in excess, as in North Korea. However, any country that wishes to maintain domestic industry and jobs must moderate foreign imports. Haitian farmers learned this lesson the hard way when cheap, subsidized, rice exports from the United States destroyed their already meager profits and forced more of them to compete for the limited opportunities for employment in the cities. So it is incumbent, on the government of the Philippines, to control agricultural imports for the benefit of domestic producers.

Anyhow, some ideas.