This morning, the headline read on the Liberty Daily: Covid “Vaccines” Unleashed a 12-Sigma Mass Death Event. While the headline may be true, the other part of the article was completely false. To wit, it was Donald Trump’s fault because he unleased Operation Warp Speed. Ethan Huff @ Natural News didn’t do his homework.

What really happened, according to the published record, is that we have Dr. Anthony Fauci’s first reference to the development timeline for potential vaccines against what was then widely referred to as the “novel coronavirus.” It came in an article published by a biotech industry news website Biocentury on January 22, 2020 -- one day after the first COVID-19 cases were reported in the United States.

But there is more documented history of the beginning of the “novel coronavirus.” The conditions of the initial problem were accurately presented in a timeline from an ABC News report: "How Coronavirus Got Started":

• December 31, 2019: The World Health Organization says a mysterious pneumonia is sickening dozens in China
• January 11, 2020: China reports its 1st novel coronavirus death
• January 21, 2020: The CDC confirmed the 1st case of SARS-CoV2 in the United States

Further review of the related literature, from a January 22, 2020 Newsweek article on SARS-CoV2 entering the U.S., without any other information to go on, we appear to have the strategic decision: Dr. Fauci is quoted as saying, “NIAID was partnering with Moderna to develop an mRNA vaccine.”

So, to be clear and accurate, on the reported day after SARS-CoV2 “novel coronavirus” was found to have washed ashore in America, reportedly in old folks’ homes, why did the undisputed world leader in infectious diseases make the unilateral health care decision that an unproven and experimental mRNA “vaccine” would be the magic bullet for SARS-CoV2, later named COVID-19?

Restated, if the goal in January 2020 was to stop a potential pandemic of SARS-CoV2, why did Fauci choose experimental mRNA technologies and an uncertain or lengthy development timeline as the nation’s response? What did he know that the rest of the planet did not?

In analyzing Presidential Decisions at the Naval War College, of which I am a graduate, we learned that Presidents didn’t routinely make unilateral strategic decisions but were assisted by their staff in the strategic planning of the nation’s response to a crisis; by staff who were well versed in strategic thinking and experts in the topics under consideration. We also learned that in cases of failed Presidential policy decisions, Presidents oftentimes acted unilaterally or politically, and did not use or heed the expert opinions of their staffs.

Very early in the response to a potential pandemic of SARS-CoV2 or COVID-19, it appears that Fauci acted unilaterally or politically and in haste; that as the ultimate decision maker at the NIAID, he declared, “NIAID was partnering with Moderna to develop an mRNA vaccine.” Not that there would be studies to find a solution. Isn’t there something simple to combat this novel coronavirus?

There is nothing in the related, publicly-available literature to suggest that Fauci’s staff was involved in the strategic planning of the nation’s response to SARS-CoV2. The lack of reporting suggests the NIAID was removed from strategic planning for any official response to the pandemic. Dr. Fauci had made the decision the day after COVID came to America: NIAID was partnering with Moderna to develop an mRNA vaccine.

The known evidence suggests the NIAID staff wasn’t consulted and were unable to provide key additional and helpful information, such as, in the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) 2005 study which found that chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. In hindsight, that may have been good information to know during strategic planning to respond to a potential coronavirus pandemic.

Was Fauci ignorant of or did Fauci purposely avoid consideration of the NIH study, one where his name appears as a contributor? It is hard to conceive that the world expert on infectious diseases was ignorant of the findings of the 2005 study that lists his name as a contributor. Of course, he will not recall. That would be a topic for a congressional investigation.

For clarification, the authors of that research reported: “…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage” and “concentrations of 10 μM completely abolished SARS-CoV infection” and “chloroquine can effectively reduce the establishment of infection and spread of SARS-CoV.”

Say what?

In a strategic planning exercise to consider what options would be available or best to respond to a pandemic, planners would be presented with options, that either an experimental and unproven strategy was the best demonstrated and available strategy or the findings of an NIH study which demonstrated there was an effective therapeutic treatment for a coronavirus.

Had Fauci and the NIAID staff conducted strategic planning on a potential pandemic approaching the shores of America, they would have likely determined that referencing their own study of 15 years, chloroquine and its milder derivative, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was a far better and immediately available therapeutic treatment for a coronavirus pandemic than an experimental, yet-to-be fully developed gene therapy.

So why did Fauci choose an experimental mRNA gene therapy which was granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) a year after the COVID-19 pandemic came to America but immediately available and effective therapeutics, specifically the off-label use of FDA-Approved HCQ (and ivermectin), was not considered an effective response to COVID-19 and was not even considered “available” under EUA? Congress and scientists are flipping and jerking around trying to figure that out.

World leaders sometimes make bad decisions. However, the unilateral decision of Fauci to have the NIAID partner with Moderna to develop an mRNA vaccine in response to the predictable COVID pandemic and not have the NIAID engage the FDA to grant EUA for the immediately available and effective off-label use of FDA-approved therapeutics that were already on pharmacy shelves has had devastating unintended consequences.

People can ignore the facts and blame the president all they want. But the decision to use an experimental, untested, and unapproved mRNA technology -- gene therapy -- condemned millions of innocents to die or suffer life-threatening side effects while the more rational decision to use inexpensive and effective therapeutics would have saved lives. There is no doubt if we had listened to President Trump on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, we would not have experienced a 12-Sigma Mass Death Event. We have Fauci, the CDC, NIAID, and the FDA to thank for that.

Image: National Archives