Evaluating Fauci
On the Subject of Laymen Criticizing Experts
Is it possible for a lay thinker to reasonably evaluate the appointed experts of the “elite”? Is it acceptable for anyone who is not an expert in a field to evaluate an expert in that field?
Last week, Anthony Fauci, testifying to the U.S. Congress, invoked his right to be free from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution over one hundred times. This week, a U.S. Senate committee will vote on whether to hold him in contempt of Congress. There are reports that his private journal contains passages in which he admits he was lying to the general public (I have not read the reports or any journal excerpts). A Senate panel has reportedly obtained a copy of his covid-era iPhone, which they plan to investigate. Many critics are repeating criticism of his recommending the drug AZT, used to treat AIDS, which the critics say did more harm than good, or even caused deaths that would not otherwise have happened. Of course, there are similar criticisms of the covid vaccines Fauci exhorted the general public to obtain. So, if it is ever appropriate for non-experts to evaluate an expert—and I think it often is, for reasons explained below—this would be as appropriate an occasion as any. How does Fauci look as a public health figure throughout his career? Is he consistent? Does he come across as competent? Is it proper to criticize him? Are his mistakes honest?
