Anthony Fauci unabashedly proclaimed his elevated opinion of his standing in relation to the common people who diverge from his venerated status as a medical expert. He assailed any critics of his advocacy for the mandates and all who questioned whether the injections were safe and effective by modestly expressing the following remonstrance:

“So if they get up and criticize science, nobody’s going to know what they’re talking about. But if they get up and really aim their bullets at Tony Fauci, well, people could recognize there’s a person there. There’s a face, there’s a voice you can recognize, you see him on television. So it’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science because I represent science.”

It is said that a corporal once remarked to Winston Churchill “I want you to know, sir, that I am a self-made man.” To this, Churchill quipped, “Young man, you have just relieved God of a solemn responsibility.” This perfectly encapsulates the level of hubris behind Fauci’s declaration in what has fondly been referred to as his “I am science” speech. Just consider the old joke:

Q: What’s the difference between a doctor and God?

A: God doesn’t think he’s a doctor.

The joke works because no one needs an explanation regarding the inherent assumptions that make this is a stinging indictment of the medical profession. This is not to say that such elevated levels of arrogance plague every doctor, but their profession is particularly vulnerable to such tendencies. Holding the power of life or death in your hands and a uniquely valuable set of skills and knowledge that thrives on public trust carries certain inherent vulnerabilities.

In Paul’s first letter to Timothy, he addresses both the need to be on guard against false teachers and the specific qualities that must be possessed by elders. This is consistent with the warning that Satan prowls around like a roaring lion seeking who he may devour. Those in positions of authority and power both have a higher responsibility and are capable of much more evil when they are corrupted. This has been evidenced by the calamitous fall of many churches and leaders, usually because accountability and staying true to the gospel is lost. The depth of corruption and devastation is contingent on whether people trusted in those in authority or followed the plumbline of the message of the gospel.

This is certainly no less true when speaking of secular institutions who start out rejecting both the source and the principles derived from the only unimpeachable source for ethics. The quote attributed to Lord Acton that, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely” presages this undeniable reality. Why is it that Thomas Jefferson stated at the founding of a new nation that “eternal vigilance is the price we pay for freedom?” If there was not an understanding that dictators are gonna dictate, then the recognition that we are born into sin has been lost. We know that ironically, those who are gifted leaders but do not covet the accompanying power are the ones best qualified to wield the ring of power.

The practise of seeking a second medical opinion is not simply grasping for something hopeful when the prognosis is bleak, but because we know that doctors are human, ergo fallible. The doctor who gives false hope can be even more dangerous than the one who offers a baseless reason to fear; but in both cases, the patient will not get the proper treatment and will be worse off because the medical assessment is false. This is why hard sciences do not reach conclusions by consensus or designating conclusions to selected experts and/or agencies. The capacity for doctors to make mistakes is not speculation as medical error is considered the third leading cause of death based on U.S. statistics (following heart disease and cancer).  The numbers are also believed to be wildly understated based on “the way medical errors are counted.” I think we can assume this means that doctors and hospitals have a strong incentive as well as the resources to – excuse the pun – bury their mistakes.

So, what happens if this already gaffe prone system is incentivized to do evil? This is a consideration that Dr. “I am science” Fauci leaves out of the equation. In fact, he is saying that people are sceptical and wants them to stop and simply blindly trust him as the infallible singular reliable source of information on COVID. He is essentially engaging in a tantrum over the fact that not everyone assumes his judgment and decisions to be unimpeachable. Such a staggering dearth of humility puts him on a par with a Pope presuming to speak ex cathedra.

I say that if Fauci can self-identify as science incarnate, I feel fully qualified to put myself forward as the embodiment of logic. Before I bequeath the basis for my superior acumen that you might bask in my boundless rationality, I would like to provide justification and standards for accountability that solidifies my claim to be the master of logic.

• I took a Philosophy class in college and my teacher informed me that I was the first student who ever received an A+ from him on an assignment. I ended up with the top mark in the class.
• For anyone still not convinced, I applied logic to address every argument I could find in favour of abortion and was able to invalidate every one.
• Finally, I engaged in the same methodology to test the veracity of Christianity, debated numerous atheists and sceptics, and have proven to myself that the Christian faith is the only logically consistent view that comports with reality.

The astute reader may have some qualms with my curriculum vitae and overall credentials; especially if there are those who disagree with my assessment and conclusions. Naysayers might want to see some sort of evidential support. They may deem me untrustworthy because they don’t know me – or for that matter, because they do. I can swear that the above is true and be sincere in my convictions of discrediting false belief systems; but I just may be writing ideological checks that my self-assured braggadocio cannot pay.

The superiority of arguing from logic rather than, science, medicine, rocket surgery (yes, I know that’s not a thing) is that logic is available to the general public. For instance, in a court that is rightly appointed, the prosecution and defence do not try to argue their cases to a diverse jury pool through professional jargon and convoluted concepts that are unintelligible to those outside the specific sphere of expertise. They need to offer evidence and respond to cross examination to either validate or invalidate what a witness says. The trustworthiness is never to be assumed, but needs to be proven to the satisfaction of those tasked with rendering a verdict.

The illustrious Dr. Fauci want to claim the authority to be the presiding judge at his own evidentiary trial. Instead of arguing his case and offering exhibits to be reviewed by a jury, he wants to skip to pronouncing judgment for all of humanity and exit the courtroom without any question. When Justin Trudeau was questioned about why he doesn’t speak about the safety and efficacy record of the “vaccines,” he responded that he has often shared publicly that the “vaccines” are safe and effective. Next question? I’m sorry, that’s not how standards of evidence work. It brings to mind the scene from “The Princess Bride” where Vizzini establishes his intellectual bona fides by stating, “Ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? MORONS!”

Consider this my preamble before delving into a deep thorough review of the facts in order to address the reliability and motivations of the claims offered by those behind the response to COVID. Consistently, those promoting the unprecedented measures to address what we were told was a “pandemic” assured us that their mandates were necessary for the safety and protection of society. I say it’s time we weigh the evidence and test this theory. As I see it there are 3 possible alternatives:

• This has all been a model of how to ensure public health and safety in the face of a health crisis.
• While much of this has been bungled, the intent was to protect the public and save lives.
• This was a naked attempt at massive population control and reduction using the premise of a conflated and manufactured pandemic narrative.

Off the top, reason tells us that if the “experts” were actually just really bad at their jobs in developing the response to COVID, they are no more trustworthy than those motivated by malice. Certainly, the implications are exactly the same since it makes little difference whether the decision making needs to be wrested from the hands of elitists and intellectuals because they are megalomaniacal or simply that they are morons. We need only look at the fruit of their conduct and the level of commitment to punishing, othering and denigrating all who concluded either that the experts were wrong or that held that bodily autonomy trumps tyranny.

My next post will be in the form of a quiz as there is no better way to sceptically evaluate foregone conclusions than by seeking answers to logically inconsistent messaging. Meanwhile, I welcome all challenges to the assertions made here, in past posts, or, for that matter, who wish to present a compelling case for abortion or against Christianity.