Dr. Anthony Fauci's personal diary entries from early 2020 reportedly show a divergence from his public statements regarding the origins of COVID-19 and the efficacy of lockdowns, according to an opinion piece published by the New York Post, citing the diary.
The article claims that while Fauci publicly maintained the "lab leak hypothesis" was unlikely and that the virus originated naturally from an animal source, his private notes suggest he was aware of scientific arguments supporting a lab origin from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The notes reportedly indicate that scientists Fauci selected presented strong evidence for a lab leak, with some suggesting the virus was bio-engineered. The piece further alleges that Fauci had previously referred to research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which received federal funding, as "gain of function" (GOF) research, a term he later denied funding under questioning from Sen. Rand Paul.
The author of the opinion piece posits that China's destruction of records hinders definitive conclusions about the role of Fauci's funding in the pandemic's origins. The article contends that Fauci utilized his influence to suppress dissenting voices questioning the virus's origins and to promote stringent lockdown measures in New York City and California, contradicting later claims that he did not advocate for mass lockdowns.
Additionally, the diary entries are characterized as revealing Fauci's vanity, with a caption next to a picture of himself reading, "If you don’t have a crush on this man, do you even care about public health?" The article suggests Fauci actively cultivated his public image through interactions with media figures.
The opinion piece criticizes Fauci's personalization of scientific debate, arguing it contributed to politicized COVID-19 policies, such as prolonged school closures and mask mandates for young children in the United States compared to European nations. It also alludes to a presidential pardon potentially shielding Fauci from criminal charges, while suggesting he could still face civil liability or the clawback of personal assets.