Phil Magness Profile picture
Nov 25 13 tweets 5 min read
Last December, I released a FOIA'd email to the world, showing that Francis Collins ordered Anthony Fauci to wage a "devastating take down" on the Great Barrington Declaration.

A year later, Fauci is apparently lying under oath, denying he ever did this
The email records reveal a different story. Fauci immediately responded to Collins by circulating an opinion article from Wired Magazine that - absurdly - claimed the lockdowns were behind us.
Fauci then circulated another opinion column from the Nation magazine by radical lockdowner Gregg Gonsalves, attacking the GBD.
Collins then repeated these anti-GBD talking points to the Washington Post, declaring that the proposal was "fringe" and "dangerous."

Fauci responded to Collins the same day, saying "what you said is entirely correct."
At some point around October 14, 2020, Fauci and Collins had a long email exchange about the Great Barrington Declaration. We still don't know what's in it because the NIH completely redacted the multi-page email.
We know that later that day, Fauci sent another email to Collins and his staff likening the GBD to "AIDS denialism"
Two days later on October 16, 2020, Fauci was in full panic mode. He sent Deborah Birx an email about how he had "come out very strongly publicly against" the GBD, and warning her that Scott Atlas would likely push for it at the Covid task force meeting later that week.
Fauci had to miss that task force meeting so he was setting Birx up to oppose the GBD if it came up. Note that significant parts of this email are also redacted, so we don't know what else they said. Birx responded though that the message was received.
Atlas did not attend the meeting as Fauci feared he would, so the proposal to discuss the GBD never came up. Fauci & Collins bantered about being relieved over this in their next few emails.
A few days later, Fauci asked his assistant Greg Folkers to round up a bunch of media op-eds attacking the GBD. Folkers delivered these to him on November 2, 2020.
The FOIA records, unfortunately, stop there, and the NIH has not responded to followup requests for additional public records about this from Fauci in almost a year. That will likely change soon though when the ongoing Missouri lawsuit gets to the discovery phase.
For a full summary of these events and links to all of the original FOIA'd emails, see here:

aier.org/article/fauci-…
And here is the Wall Street Journal's editorial against Fauci and Collins for their role in suppressing scientific dissent over the lockdowns.

wsj.com/articles/fauci…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Phil Magness

Phil Magness Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PhilWMagness

Nov 25
TIL that there are only two direct mentions of Karl Marx in Max Weber's massive and posthumously published "Economy and Society." The more substantial one is clearly written in the direct context of recent events in Russia:
The second is a brief commentary on Marxian class theory in light of the unfinished parts of Capital.
Weber was certainly aware of Marx - an observation none would deny. But this is awfully weak sauce on which to stake a claim that Marx was *the* central object of Weber's attention, as some have attempted in more recent times.
Read 5 tweets
Nov 25
Look who else believed that the Soviet revolution of 1917 pushed Karl Marx into the intellectual mainstream:

Eric Hobsbawm.
I await the flurry of angry tweets from "intellectual historians" chiding Hobsbawm for not knowing his Marx, and for not consulting the right Marx "experts" before reaching these conclusions.
Hobsbawm continues in the same essay, DIRECTLY attributing the academic mass-adoption of Marx to the aftermath of the Bolsheviks seizing control of a major world government.
Read 4 tweets
Nov 23
Quit lying, @BobMurphyEcon.

I found the Sowell quote in John Fitzpatrick's biography of JS Mill, reproduced in full below.

I told you this directly when you asked me this morning, and now you're falsely accusing me of leaving out a line that wasn't even in Fitzpatrick's text. Image
@BobMurphyEcon Even then, the full passage from Sowell does not support what you claim, Bob.

Sowell goes on to explain how Marx took over the IWA...and then promptly destroyed it through constant infighting & purges until the entire organization folded! ImageImage
@BobMurphyEcon In the very next section, Sowell, describes how the post-IWA phase of Marx's career consisted of him failing to finish the next volumes of Capital & drifting off into obscurity except for a brief surge of interest when he defended the Paris Commune. ImageImage
Read 5 tweets
Nov 20
In investigating whether Frankfurt School and Critical Theory are an alternative route for disseminating and mainstreaming Karl Marx's ideas, simple chronology becomes an obstacle.

Most Frankfurt School theorists were infrequently cited themselves at the time Marx surged. Image
This is not surprising. The Frankfurt School mainly drew from young academics and recent PhD graduates in their 20s. They rode the aftermath of Marxism's boost from 1917 - taking decades to materialize in some cases.
Insofar as the Frankfurt School of the 1920s got noticed *in the 1920s* for boosting Marx, it was likely for another project: the MEGA translation series of Marx and Engels' work, which was conducted in collaboration with and funded by...the Soviet Union.
Read 4 tweets
Nov 20
I've often found that casual defenders of CRT on the political left have even less of an understanding of what CRT entails than the people they claim to be defending it from on the right.

This should not surprise us. CRT is an intentionally imprecise & muddled concept.
If we go back to its roots in the work of Crenshaw, Delgado etc., the simplest definition of CRT is a branch Critical Theory adapted to race. Crenshaw is quite explicit about this & the accompanying normative obligation to seek radical political transformation through CRT.
Crenshaw, who first proposed the name at one of the formative conferences behind CRT, clearly states that it was an explicit homage to Critical Theory - an older derivative of Marxist doctrine from the 1930s that began with class as its focus.
Read 4 tweets
Nov 19
One of the objections we've heard is that Marx may not have been mentioned by name as much before 1917, but distinctly Marxist phrases and concepts are.

The problem: many "distinctly Marxist" phrases are not in fact unique to Marx.
Let's take the doctrine of "surplus value" as an example. It's a centerpiece of Marxian economics, so surely that's a sign of Marx's growing influence, right? Image
It's not that simple though. The concept of surplus value predates Marx, and was a core concept used across multiple socialist factions including Marx's rival Johann Karl Rodbertus. Image
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(