by Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, Global Research:
How do we confront situations where individuals in positions of immense authority fail to admit they were catastrophically wrong—especially when their decisions, policies, and actions have contributed to millions of lives lost? During the COVID-19 pandemic, Anthony Fauci and federal health agencies exerted near-complete control over the nation’s medical response. Every directive was treated as gospel, and dissent—even when supported by solid scientific evidence—was silenced. The consequences of this authoritarian approach were disastrous.
In every epidemic, doctors stand as the first line of defense and work tirelessly to protect patients and the greater public from harm. It is standard practice for medical experts to offer professional assessments and propose solutions aimed at improving outcomes. Yet, during the COVID-19 crisis, Anthony Fauci’s message was clear: Americans were told to do nothing but isolate, wait, and rush to the hospital only when severely ill. This passive approach demanded unwavering obedience from medical professionals and the public alike.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Meanwhile, federal health agencies insisted that salvation lay in the promise of new novel vaccines and experimental drugs such as Remdesivir and Molnupiravir. Doctors who dared to suggest otherwise and were successfully treating their patients were mocked, ridiculed, and condemned by media pundits and government officials alike.
Nearly five years later, overwhelming evidence reveals that Fauci and the federal agencies were wrong on almost every key point. They dismissed early interventions with repurposed medications, such as Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine, and labeled them as dangerous and ineffective, despite evidence to the contrary. Fauci and other officials knew full well that these medications could be highly effective. They also knew that granting Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for new vaccines and drugs required proving that no viable alternatives existed. Protecting pharmaceutical profits and proprietary rights to market these novel treatments meant suppressing any evidence that pre-existing therapies could work.
The response was brutal and systematic. Dissident voices were silenced and their reputations destroyed. Physicians and scientists who challenged the official narrative were punished, ostracized, and alienated. Funding was withheld to prevent the publication of studies that contradicted government positions. Those who persisted were treated as untouchables—dehumanized and relegated to a subhuman status. They were vilified by the media and colleagues alike.
We might look at the legacy of six leading medical professionals who challenged federal health policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite their exceptional credentials, each paid inexcusable consequences for their dissent.
Dr. Harvey Risch, a Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale University’s School of Public Health and a National Academy of Medicine member with over 350 peer-reviewed publications, criticized the CDC and FDA for ignoring observational studies supporting Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an early outpatient treatment for high-risk COVID-19 patients. He argued that reliance on randomized controlled trials during the pandemic delayed effective interventions, contributing to preventable deaths. Risch contended that the suppression of HCQ was politically motivated and underscored the failure of federal agencies to act swiftly on available evidence. For his dissent, he was labeled a promoter of “misinformation,” vilified in mainstream media, and excluded from influential public health advisory roles, suffering reputational damage among peers.
Dr. Pierre Kory is a globally recognized pulmonologist and a pioneer in critical care ultrasound therapy. He is a co-founder of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Kory criticized the FDA and NIH for discrediting Ivermectin, which he championed as an effective treatment and prophylactic for SARS-2 infections. He accused the federal agencies for relying on flawed studies to dismiss evidence supporting Ivermectin and condemned hospital protocols that prioritized late-stage interventions, such as ventilators, over early treatment. Despite presenting his findings before Congress, Kory faced media censorship and professional ostracism by the medical establishment. His advocacy led to personal and professional backlash including the loss of professional engagements.
