Fauci’s Testimony Reveals Troubling Facts, Demanding Immediate Action
The Mysterious Origins of the Six-Foot Social Distancing Rule
Despite the selective amnesia Dr. Anthony Fauci was laboring with this month while testifying before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, a fascinating detail emerged from the testimony, a summary of which was released to the public on Wednesday. According to lawmakers who were there, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and former chief medical adviser to the president — the man who once equated himself with science itself — offered a stunning concession that the six-foot social distancing edict “sort of just appeared” out of nowhere and was likely not based on scientific data.
Many have argued this for years. Twelve months after the first coronavirus guidelines were issued on March 9, 2020, Tucker Carlson pointed out what a report in the British Medical Journal had contended six months earlier: Social distancing rules that “stipulate a single specific physical distance between individuals to reduce transmission” originate in flawed research from the late 19th century and a longstanding framework that simplistically “dichotomizes respiratory droplets into two sizes.”
So how did this quackery suddenly become trusted “science”? Revisiting the critical February to March 2020 time frame, including Fauci’s emails from the period, provides some insight.
The Origins of the Six-Foot Rule
On Feb. 5, 2020, Fauci sent a note to Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases and early incident manager for the Covid response, asking whether a Wall Street Journal article from Feb. 2 had misquoted the CDC. The article referred to the virus’ ability to “spread from infected patients without symptoms to close contacts within about 6 feet” (my emphasis). It’s not clear whether it was Messonnier who spoke with the Journal, how she responded to Fauci’s inquiry, or where the information came from.
The six-foot standard had already drifted into public health documents prior to the Covid outbreak. For example, in October 2019, the California Department of Health updated its guidelines for the prevention and control of influenza in nursing facilities, in line with CDC recommendations, for “a distance of six feet between patients with influenza in multi-bed rooms” and the “use of facemasks when within six feet of a patient with suspected or confirmed influenza.”
The updates were supposedly based on “research that demonstrates that respiratory droplets may travel as far as six feet.” However, the “research” wasn’t any innovative, randomized controlled study but rather the CDC’s 2007 hunch, likely based on a 2003 study into the transmission of SARS via infected passengers on an aircraft. This consensus crept into public health speak via guidelines published in places such as the Clinical Infectious Diseases journal and by the National Adult and Influenza Immunization Summit. In April 2020, Quartz (and subsequently Fortune) endeavored to confirm the origins of the six-foot guideline with the CDC, but after “multiple attempts over two weeks, the agency failed to comment.”
To these already shaky foundations, the CDC added in its Feb. 2 quote to the Journal the folklore of asymptomatic spread, which the 2003 SARS study effectively ruled out, and which the World Health Organization-China Joint Mission poured cold water on in its Feb. 28 report. Dr. Bruce Aylward, team lead and senior adviser to the WHO director-general, emphasized that it was an “urban myth” that asymptomatic transmission chains were widely spreading the virus.
Meanwhile, Messonnier was already flagging the likelihood of containment measures. In a Feb. 25 telebriefing, she publicly braced the nation to expect “school closings, workplace shutdowns, and the canceling of large gatherings,” warning of “severe disruption” to everyday life.
On March 1, Fauci asked Messonnier’s opinion on an interim Targeted Layered Mitigation Strategy distributed internally by Dr. Garrett Grisby, director of the Office of Global Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Then on March 4, Messonnier hosted a working session “to align current activities and next steps to be executed as part of a coordinated HHS response to COVID-19.”
It’s unclear whether the six-foot rule had already wormed its way into the strategizing at this point. However, it’s evident that the extreme social distancing train had left the station.
Following China
Certainly, China and the WHO drove the momentum for adopting stringent containment measures. Although Dr. Aylward admitted he hadn’t seen anything like China’s strategy in his 30 years in the business, the joint mission report enthusiastically endorsed China’s aggressive model. In fact, according to Fauci, it was Dr. Clifford Lane, clinical director at the NIAID and U.S. representative to the WHO delegation to China, who convinced Fauci that the U.S. should emulate China’s lockdowns.
Notwithstanding, the six-foot rule can’t reasonably be blamed on either the WHO or China. It isn’t mentioned in the joint mission report. In fact, photos from the period from China show masked individuals thronging grocery stores and huddled together waiting to be tested in local hospitals, and even the WHO-China delegates crowding together for a group photo. Early on, the WHO was actually advising keeping three feet apart (1 meter), an equally arbitrary recommendation based on 90-year-old research into tuberculosis, and which was applied in places like Italy and France.
Deceptive Claims
In the U.S., the six-foot rule officially emerged between early and mid-March. Experts suddenly shifted from their recommendations on March 4 to wash hands, cover sneezes, and stay home when sick — all measures, as CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield pointed out, that “we would ask you to do for flu.” On March 9, the earliest CDC guidelines were announced in a White House Coronavirus Taskforce press briefing. Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx deceptively claimed that the “scientific evidence that informed each of these guidelines” came from research out of Australia. This was apparently news to the Australian researchers who authored the four-day-old, non-peer-reviewed, and inherently flawed paper.
The implications are sickening. In the forthcoming public hearing, lawmakers need to frogmarch Fauci down memory lane and retrace the decision-making process that unfolded in those pivotal weeks leading up to the first social distancing guidelines. Fauci might be correct that the rules weren’t based on science. But they didn’t write themselves, and the public has a right to know who did. Too many lives were destroyed by the pandemic response travesty for Fauci to “I don’t recall” his way out of this one.
What is the scientific basis for the six-foot social distancing rule?
Ly March and early April 2020. On March 16, the White House Coronavirus Task Force first recommended social distancing guidelines, which included the six-foot rule, as a way to slow the spread of the virus. However, as mentioned earlier, the origins of this specific distancing distance are still unknown.
What is known, though, is that the scientific basis for the six-foot rule is questionable at best. As mentioned in the British Medical Journal report and various other sources, the rule is based on flawed research from the late 19th century. It simplistically categorizes respiratory droplets into two sizes and assumes that a specific physical distance can effectively reduce transmission.
Furthermore, the sources of these guidelines were not innovative or randomized controlled studies but rather the CDC’s 2007 hunch and the findings from a 2003 study on the transmission of SARS. These findings were then incorporated into public health recommendations and guidelines without further scrutiny.
It is worth noting that the CDC has failed to comment on the origins of the six-foot guideline when questioned by media outlets. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the scientific validity of the rule and its implementation.
The role of China and the World Health Organization (WHO) in driving the adoption of stringent containment measures, including social distancing, cannot be overlooked. China’s aggressive model and the WHO’s endorsement of it influenced decision-makers worldwide. Dr. Clifford Lane, the clinical director at the NIAID and the US representative to the WHO delegation to China, even convinced Dr. Fauci to adopt China’s lockdown strategy.
However, the specific six-foot rule cannot be attributed to China or the WHO. In fact, early photos from China during the outbreak show individuals in close proximity, contradicting the idea of the six-foot distance. The WHO initially recommended keeping a three-foot distance, based on outdated research on tuberculosis.
In conclusion, the origins of the six-foot social distancing rule remain mysterious. The lack of clear scientific evidence and transparency in its development raise concerns about its validity. As we navigate the ongoing pandemic, it is crucial to continue questioning and evaluating the basis of public health guidelines to ensure they are based on sound scientific research.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
