Independent research & views related to the COVID Event | Jessica Hockett, PhD
n
Mail Bag: Response to Reader Question about the Role of Anthony Fauci, 2 August 2026
Jessica Hockett, PhD
Publishing my 2 August 2026 response to a reader email on the same day.
The reader asked me what role Fauci played if the Department of Defense was “in charge of 2020” response, and whether the congressional inquiry into Fauci is justified if he was not the person “calling the shots”.
My reply follows, with two references omitted for privacy and relevance:
“DOD was in charge of 2020” is not a view I have expressed and isn’t a distillation I would use.
Regarding Fauci’s diary, I have read only the entries relevant to my response to The Telegraph article, plus a few excerpts embedded in mainstream or independent-media stories here and there. I did not watch any of the hearing, and I don’t plan to read the transcript unless or until I need to for some other task. What I think of Paul and Fauci is already reflected in these articles:
There is no new information surfacing. It’s all theatrics, and I think it will eventually backfire on Rand Paul because, at this point, he looks absolutely insane. In my opinion, Fauci received good advice to say as little as possible.
Fauci and others played many roles from the public’s perspective. Obviously, he was one of the “faces” of “the response” at the White House level. Early on, his presence helped validate the claim that a disease-spread event was occurring.
From an entertainment perspective, Fauci served as a contrast or foil to Donald Trump and helped fuel the fake red-state/Trump/Republican versus blue-state/Democrat “battle” over what to do. In retrospect, that battle is represented well by the focus of pieces published in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. There was no question of whether something causative of disease was suddenly spreading; the focus was squarely on the nature of “the response.”
Fauci was also an excellent health-politics celebrity. People were listening to him — especially Covidians, people who leaned left or otherwise distrusted anything Trump was saying, and those who weren’t sure what was happening. He is outstanding on camera, extremely fluid in his speech and responses, and not easily ruffled. Alongside two other New Yorkers — Trump and Cuomo — he helped create the perfect dynamic.
As we moved into different theaters and phases, Fauci became a primary defender of whatever the CDC et al. said people should or should not do. He was also a spokesperson for what was ostensibly known or unknown about the virus, disease, treatments, masks, and shots. His statements helped make various policies and policy recommendations at the federal, state, and county levels appear scientifically grounded and legally defensible.
The focus on Fauci now serves the state-sponsored pandemic narrative, but it also serves various “opposition” camps, big and small. A wide swath of Permitted Dissent can use him to advance early-treatment claims and beliefs in a manmade, transmissible, illness-causing pathogen originating in Wuhan, the U.S., or wherever. “No Viruses” isn’t interested in explaining events.
A good portion of the public does want accountability for what happened, but there is also a fair amount of confusion and apathy. In my opinion, that is because so little truth has been told. Fauci is, in effect, an outlet or whipping boy for satisfying the desire for accountability. But there is no justice without truth.
What laws is Fauci supposed to have broken? More importantly, what laws or ethical codes has he broken that many, many others did not also break? Much of what came out of the CDC is entirely consistent with the assumptions and claims of epidemiology, virology, and related fields.
The only reason “Prosecute Fauci” gained steam and continues to hold public attention is the gain-of-function funding angle. The U.S. government needs the public to connect GoF research to the creation of a virus that caused a pandemic. If there is no basis whatsoever for that causal chain, there is no basis for singling out and vilifying Fauci, Baric, et al.
I have not evaluated the goals of the current inquiry, but I can’t imagine it is serving any real purpose beyond CYA for everyone involved and distraction from the pandemic’s having been a staged, constructed event.
Neither of these work: “Blame the Global Cabal/Defense Behemoth/Industrial Complexes” and “Blame Fauci”.
The first emphasis is disempowering and gets us nowhere. The second is myopic and also gets us nowhere.
###
The Fauci spectacle is, at this point, best characterized as an unlimited, ongoing, never-ending hangout involving peak political performance artistrythat benefits many parties, factions, and interests.
Is it worthy of study? Yes.
The challenge, as with all things related to the COVID event, will continue to be in deciding what to take literally but not seriously, what to take seriously but not literally,* and what to ignore altogether — even when we are begged to pay attention.
Leave a Reply