latest  boundaries  about

Tony Fauci—Your Tax Dollars at Work

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has unnaturally-harmful binding to receptors in humans, an unnatural breakage point that lets it harmfully enter cells, and unusual suitability to be used with future antivirals that would protect the people who deploy the virus. Tony Fauci took every action he could take that would fund the engineering of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by Chinese experts and that would increase the virus’s destructiveness. The fix isn’t to hire a better bureaucrat, it’s to eliminate the entire bureaucracy, so that health research in particular is controlled by customers.

James Anthony
June 25, 2021

It’s all about control.

Control by Tony Fauci

Governments enable a small number of people to control a significant portion of the value added by everyone. In the USA in fiscal year 2021, national, state, and local government people will control nearly half of all value added—47% [1].

In the Constitution, no power is enumerated over health [2]. Regardless, in 1887 a laboratory was established at the Marine Hospital on Staten Island, New York. Over time, that toehold of mission and funding was broadened and deepened by congresses and presidents until in the Department of Health and Human Services, in the National Institutes of Health, that laboratory spawned the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Supposedly “NIAID conducts and supports basic and applied research to better understand, treat, and ultimately prevent infectious, immunologic, and allergic diseases.” [3]

This certainly sounds like the research that producers would perform if customers were in control.

But NIAID research is not controlled by customers choosing which medicines and therapies they want. NIAID research is controlled by one government person—Tony Fauci.

Tony Fauci is a bureaucrat whose understanding of infectious, immunologic, and allergic diseases has primarily been learned on the job. His most-direct, most-thorough teachers have been highly-accomplished researchers who ply him for money. Of course as everyone knows, sales pitches always play up the positives and downplay the negatives.

Sales pitches aren’t a problem when research is done for customers. If any research done for customers was problematic, then customers wouldn’t buy any resulting products, customers would shun those producers, those producers would fail, and the people responsible would find work with other producers or would move on to new lines of work.

But if problematic research is pitched to Tony Fauci, his approval is all it takes to get that research funded. And in Tony Fauci’s way of thinking, to have not funded Chinese researchers’ work on coronaviruses would have been “almost a dereliction of [NIAID’s] duty.” [4]

In our roles as customers, we don’t get any choices about Tony Fauci’s decisions. In our roles as voters, though, we do get some choices that affect whether will get more or fewer of such monopoly-government decisions [5].

To make better-informed choices, let’s examine for ourselves whether Tony Fauci’s funding decisions fulfilled NIAID’s self-described ultimate duty—to prevent disease.

Tony Fauci’s Monster

Modern biology lets people insert or delete genes, creating organisms or viruses that would otherwise never have existed.

This obviously is a dual-use technology. The two uses usually discussed are civilian and military, but the two uses that matter are commercial and government.

Commercial uses satisfy customers by doing good for very-many people. Government uses satisfy government people by building reputation and power for just a few government people.

For customers, when bacteria and yeast are engineered to efficiently produce human insulin, this improves and lengthens the lives of considerable numbers of people. For governments, when viruses are engineered to infect more harmfully, this worsens and shortens the lives of considerable numbers of people.

On the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the key functionality is examined in a detailed preprint by Li-Meng Yan and coworkers which is relied on below [6]. This functionality, all by itself, makes it beyond a reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 did not simply appear in nature as the product of natural processes but instead was engineered.

SARS-CoV-2 contains intricate functionality never observed in nature that makes this virus less infectious to the usual natural hosts and more infectious to humans, and that makes this virus cumulatively more lethal to humans. SARS-CoV-2 also contains the exact functionality that would make this virus the most suitable to be used in conjunction with defensive antivirals that, once developed, would protect its owners’ population when its owners deploy the virus as an offensive weapon against others.

This unique combination of functionality makes SARS-CoV-2 clearly suitable to be just the kind of offensive weapon that was envisioned in detail by Chinese military scientists in a book published in February 2015 [7].

SARS-CoV-2’s backbone was either the ZC45 bat coronavirus or the ZXC21 bat coronavirus that were co-discovered between July 2015 and February 2017 by two Chinese military research labs and that are co-owned these labs, or some similar bat coronavirus whose genome has not been published. Compared to SARS-CoV-2, ZC45 and ZXC21 each have nucleocapsid protein that’s 94% identical, ORF8 protein (which includes RdRp protein, discussed below) that’s 94.2% identical, a spike protein S2 portion that’s 95% identical, membrane protein that’s 98.6% identical, and E protein that’s 100% identical. The varying levels of identicality reflect that individual components were engineered separately and then were assembled to form the genome.

SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein was engineered by inserting two restriction sites that aren’t in ZC45, synthesizing various candidate S1 portion receptor binding motif segments, and selecting the segment that binds most strongly to the human ACE2 receptor.

The spike protein S1 portion, the portion which contains the receptor-binding motif, was certain to be closely examined, so the fact that it was based on the SARS-CoV-1 spike protein S1 portion was significantly camouflaged. Every sequence in the SARS-CoV-1 spike protein S1 portion that doesn’t bind to the human ACE2 receptor was changed. Every sequence that does bind to the receptor was retained, but with several substitutions that provided further camouflage and that potentially would make the binding stronger and therefore more damaging. Sure enough, compared to the SARS-CoV-1 spike protein S1 portion, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 portion does bind more strongly to the human ACE2 receptor [8]. This stronger binding is how the virus achieves a secure base of operations in the lungs, and is how from there the virus fans out and widely disrupts the inner walls of blood vessels [9], causing widespread serious disease manifestations and escalating to death.

The spike protein S1/S2 junction, which mediates the virus fusion with the cell membrane, was engineered so the virus will cleave when catalyzed by the body’s ubiquitous furin. The spike protein S1/S2 junction in SARS-CoV-2 has a sequence that has not been reported in the spike protein S1/S2 junctions in natural coronaviruses. Once the virus binds to a receptor, this S1/S2 junction that gets cleaved by furin greatly enhances the virus’s ability to breach the cell’s protective membrane and enter the cell, where the virus then hijacks the cell’s RNA-synthesis machinery to make virus copies, multiplying the quantity of virus in the body.

SARS-CoV-2’s RdRp protein, which the virus uses to facilitate virus replication by the body’s RNA-synthesis machinery, was taken from the bat coronavirus RaBtCoV/4991. The RaBtCoV/4991 RdRp protein has no homologs in human cells, so antiviral drugs would be able to not harm humans while targeting the virus. For this reason, the RaBtCoV/4991 RdRp protein was targeted by Gilead’s existing antiviral candidate remdesivir, which had already been trialed on Ebola and tested on animal models of SARS-CoV-1 and MERS [10].

Also, conveniently, the gene that codes for the RdRp protein is commonly used to categorize coronaviruses. So substituting in this short sequence from RaBtCoV/4991 also would camouflage that the backbone was either the Chinese-military-owned ZC45 or ZXC21 bat coronavirus or some similar bat coronavirus whose genome has not been published.

The spike protein S1 protein and the spike protein S1/S2 junction increased SARS-CoV-2’s cumulative lethality compared to natural viruses, so each clearly was a gain of function. The RdRp gene increased SARS-CoV-2’s suitability to be an offensive weapon once paired with proprietary weapon defenses, so this too clearly was a gain of function.

Gain-of-function research that might increase cumulative lethality above that of naturally-occurring viruses, and gain-of-function research that might increase suitability as an offensive weapon, would never be seen by any customer as a positive good that’s worth funding. Customers would shun producers that tried to persuade them that it would be humanitarian to perform such monstrous gain-of-function research.

Gain-of-function research, though, was championed for many years by many USA government people who were in a position to support it directly with funding. In particular, gain-of-function research was determinedly championed by Tony Fauci. He championed gain-of-function research in his words: even if it “triggers a pandemic”, “the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks” [11]. And he championed gain-of-function research in his actions.

The USA government support of this Chinese research is breathtakingly dug in, to an extent that calls to mind USA government people’s fierce determination to fund Planned Parenthood’s abortions that end lives on a massive scale.

Government people at the Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency provided at least $37.5 million to EcoHealth Alliance, which then funded, among others, the Wuhan Institute of Virology [12].

These DoD DTRA grants to EcoHealth Alliance included $6,491,025 from 2017 to 2020 for “Understanding the risk of bat-borne zoonotic disease emergence in Western Asia.” [13] It’s easy to imagine Tony Fauci having a hand in drafting this line, and then steering the funding to WIV, to further the gain-of-function research he so-ardently championed.

Government people in the HHS National Institutes of Health funded WIV both directly and through EcoHealth Alliance. Government people in the HHS NIH also funded WIV collaborators at the University of North Carolina.

Government people in the HHS Food and Drug Administration approved an FDA employee serving as a resource to WIV [14].

And Tony Fauci, head of the HHS NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases funded the WIV directly and through the University of Texas Medical Branch. Between fiscal years 2014 and 2019, Tony Fauci directly sent WIV $826,777 [15].

Destructive Recommendations

Having recklessly done all that a bureaucrat could do to facilitate creation of the bioweapon SARS-CoV-2, which was soon loosed on the world, Tony Fauci then presented himself as the foremost expert and arbiter of all solutions [16]. But somewhat unbelievably, in this capacity too Tony Fauci managed to make himself instrumental in making the pandemic much worse.

Tony Fauci worked with NIH, the World Health Organization, and collaborators to misdirect scientists, politicians, and media about the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to conceal crucial knowledge about the resulting COVID-19 disease [17].

Tony Fauci championed 15 days to slow the spread. Targets inevitably followed that could be seen from the outset to be unreachable [18]. The predictable result was 15 months of disruption, preventing massive amounts of value creation in the economy. This eliminated what had been an incumbent president’s strong lead going into the election thanks to the economic growth prior to the pandemic.

Tony Fauci worked with the CDC, the FDA, and collaborators to misdirect about proper trial and use of existing, cost-effective antivirals [19], especially the combination of hydroxychloroquine and zinc [20], and ivermectin [21].

The more-pernicious result was a great deal of readily-avoidable death and disease, not only from SARS-CoV-2 but also from missed treatments for other diseases and from unprecedented economic destruction caused by direct exercises of force by people in the national government, state governments, and local governments [22].

Many Such Journeys Are Possible

In the first season of Star Trek in the episode “The City on the Edge of Forever,” after travels back in time initially undid the future and then were resolved through a personal tragedy, the guardian of the time portal told the landing party, “Many such journeys are possible.” More crises are possible here too.  

Before 2019, biological attack was a theoretical curiosity. Notice that government people, for all their study of the potential problem, did nothing that can be shown to have prevented such an attack, and did an incredible, sustained series of steps that first made such an accident or attack possible and that then made it deadlier.

Given the rapid advance of technologies, other theoretical curiosities are brewing, for example in social media, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Many unbelievable actions by government people will be equally possible in every sphere in which control by customers has been grabbed away and replaced with control by government people.

Tony Fauci justly deserves punishment, but punishment is not prevention. Given concentrated government power, the judgment of every person or group of people is certain to fall short in significant ways.

No one person and no group of people we could hire for government will possess anything that’s at all like the massive local knowledge [23], crony-resistant independence [24], and speed [25] that we ourselves have, together, as customers [26].

The take-away lesson is not to hire a better person in place of Tony Fauci. The lesson is to not give up our control in first place, and to take back our control now.

The prevention we needed is to stop the control by government people from replacing the control by customers. To do this, we must rid ourselves of representatives whose unconstitutional actions and inactions create and maintain the unconstitutional administrative state.

The administrative state [27] wholesale-defies the Constitution’s enumerated powers [2], nondelegable legislative powers [28], and state powers [29]. We must elect [30] executives who don’t execute any statutes, and who don’t spend any appropriations, in any areas that violate the Constitution in any way [31]. We must elect legislators who fully repeal all unconstitutional statutes [32].

Your tax dollars do by far the best work when they stay in your hands until you choose to buy what you want [33].


  1. Chantrill, Christopher, “Total Budgeted 2021 Government Spending.” com, www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_2021USpn. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  2. Diamond, Martin. “The Forgotten Doctrine of Enumerated Powers.” Publius, vol. 6, no. 4, Autumn 1976, pp. 187-93.
  3. “NIAID Mission.” National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 16 Apr. 2021, www.niaid.nih.gov/about/mission-planning-overview. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  4. Dunleavy, Jerry. “Fauci: It Would Have Been ‘Dereliction of Our Duty’ Not to Collaborate with China on Studying Coronaviruses.” Washington Examiner, 25 May 2021, www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fauci-dereliction-duty-not-collaborate-with-china-studying-coronaviruses. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  5. Gordon, David. Preface. Science, Technology, and Government, by Murray N. Rothbard, Mises Institute, 2015, pp. 7-14.
  6. Yan, Li-Meng, et al. “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route.” ResearchGate, 13 Sep. 2020, www.researchgate.net/publication/344240007_Unusual_Features_of_the_SARS-CoV-2_Genome_Suggesting_Sophisticated_Laboratory_Modification_Rather_Than_Natural_Evolution_and_Delineation_of_Its_Probable_Synthetic_Route. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  7. Fang, Frank. “Chinese Military Scientists Discussed Man-Made Coronavirus Attack Years before COVID-19 Pandemic.” The Epoch Times, 19 June 2021, www.theepochtimes.com/chinese-military-scientists-discussed-man-made-coronavirus-attack-years-before-covid-19-pandemic_3810621.html. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  8. Jafary, Farzaneh, et al. “In Silico Investigation of Critical Binding Pattern in SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2.” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, 2021, 6927.
  9. Lei, Yuyang, et al. “SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2.” Circulation Research, vol. 128, no. 9, 2021, pp. 1323-6.
  10. “Development of Remdesivir.” Gilead, 1 Apr. 2020, www.gilead.com/-/media/gilead-corporate/files/pdfs/covid-19/gilead_rdv-development-fact-sheet-2020.pdf. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  11. Fauci, Anthony S. “Research on Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Influenza Virus: The Way Forward.” Mbio, vol. 3, no. 5, 2012, e00359-12.
  12. Kerr, Andrew. “Why Did a Pentagon Subagency Dedicated to Countering WMDs Give $37.5 Million to Firm with Ties to Wuhan Lab?” Daily Caller News Foundation, 7 June 2021, dailycaller.com/2021/06/07/defense-threat-reduction-agency-ecohealth-alliance/. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  13. Boswell, Josh, and Martin Gould. “The Pentagon Gave $39 Million to Dr. Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance – the Charity That Funded Coronavirus Research at the Wuhan Lab Accused of Being the Source of the Outbreak, Federal Data Reveals.” Daily Mail, 4 June 2021, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9652287/The-Pentagon-funneled-39million-charity-funded-Wuhan-lab.html. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  14. Atkisson, Sharyl. “3 Points the Media Is Still Getting Wrong about Wuhan Lab Theory, and the Documents to Prove It.” The Epoch Times, 8 June 2021, www.theepochtimes.com/3-points-the-media-is-still-getting-wrong-about-wuhan-lab-theory-and-the-documents-to-prove-it_3844792.html. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  15. Stieber, Zachary. “US Gave More Money to Chinese Lab for Bat Research Than Fauci Claimed: Document.” The Epoch Times, 8 June 2021, www.theepochtimes.com/us-gave-more-money-to-chinese-lab-for-bat-research-than-fauci-claimed-documents_3845561.html. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  16. Byrne, Brendan. “Did Fauci ‘Expect the Unexpected’? Amazon and Barnes & Noble Have Removed Fauci’s New Book.” Insider Paper, 3 June 2021, insiderpaper.com/faucis-book-removed-from-amazon-and-barnes-noble/. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  17. Pandolfo, Chris. “Timeline: How Top Health Experts Colluded to Bury the COVID-19 Lab-Leak Theory.” Blaze Media, 4 June 2021, www.theblaze.com/news/fauci-messaging-timeline. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  18. Anthony, James. “City Problems Need City Solutions.” us, 4 Sep. 2020, rconstitution.us/city-problems-need-city-solutions-open-up-counties-again/. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  19. Anthony, James. “Best Practices for Recovering from Novel Virus Infections.” us, 30 May 2021, rconstitution.us/best-practices-for-recovering-from-novel-virus-infections/. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  20. Anthony, James. “Hydroxychloroquine, Used Early, Is the Most-Effective COVID-19 Treatment, and Is Likely Much Better Given Supplemental Zinc.” us, 30 July 2020, rconstitution.us/hydroxychloroquine-used-early-is-the-most-effective-covid-19-treatment-and-is-likely-much-better-given-supplemental-zinc/. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  21. Horowitz, Daniel. “The Censorship of Ivermectin Is the Biggest Story of COVID.” Blaze Media, 9 June 2021, www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-the-censorship-of-ivermectin-is-the-biggest-story-of-covid. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  22. Tamny, John. “Restricting Freedom Didn’t Defeat Covid.” Law & Liberty, 11 May 2021, lawliberty.org/restricting-freedom-didnt-defeat-covid/. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  23. Anthony, James. “The Use of Knowledge in Pandemics.” us, 19 Feb. 2021, rconstitution.us/the-use-of-knowledge-in-pandemics/. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  24. Anthony, James. “Who Decides: Cronies, or Customers?.” us, 28 May 2021, rconstitution.us/who-decides-cronies-or-customers/. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  25. “Control Difficulty Comes from Less Capacity and More Dead Time.” site, whatworks.site/control-difficulty/. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  26. Mises, Ludwig von. Bureaucracy. Yale University Press, 1941, pp. 20-1.
  27. Anthony, James. “On the Reading of Old Constitutions.” us, 9 Oct. 2020, rconstitution.us/on-the-reading-of-old-constitutions/. Accessed 15 May 2021.
  28. Lawson, Gary. “Delegation and Original Meaning.” Virginia Law Review, vol. 327, no. 2, Apr. 2002, pp. 327-404.
  29. USA Constitution, amend. X.
  30. Anthony, James. “Voting Guide for Constitutionalists.” us, 30 Oct. 2020, rconstitution.us/voting-guide-for-constitutionalists/. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  31. Anthony, James. “The First 1,461 Days of a Constitutionalist President.” us, 8 Jan. 2021, rconstitution.us/the-first-1461-days-of-a-constitutionalist-president/. Accessed 19 May 2021.
  32. Anthony, James. “’Constitution Support’ Pushes Back Progressive Tyranny.” us, 18 Dec. 2020, rconstitution.us/constitution-support-pushes-back-progressive-tyranny/. Accessed 25 June 2021.
  33. Anthony, James. “Your Future Earnings Are Quickly Becoming Other People’s Money.” The Federalist, 8 Sep. 2020, thefederalist.com/2020/09/08/your-future-earnings-are-quickly-becoming-other-peoples-money/. Accessed 21 May 2021.

James Anthony is the author of The Constitution Needs a Good Party and rConstitution Papers and has written articles in The Federalist, Foundation for Economic Education, American Thinker, American Greatness, and rConstitution.us. Mr. Anthony is an experienced chemical engineer with a master’s in mechanical engineering.


  1. Be respectful.
  2. Say what you mean. 
    Provide data. Don’t say something’s wrong without providing data. Do explain what’s right and provide data. It’s been said that often differences in opinion between smart people are differences in data, and the guy with the best data wins.  link  But when a writer provides data, the writer and the readers all win. Don’t leave readers guessing unless they go to links or references. 
  3. Credit sources
    Provide links or references to credit data sources and to offer leads.