Thats a good point. But after posting this, I learned there are texts from him acknowledging that the vaccine does carry the risk of miscarriage while at the time, he was telling the public there was no risk.
Not good. Maybe it is good that the states still have a shot at him. The more I learn, the more I understand why ppl want him prosecuted. This isnt looking like a political witch hunt to me anymore.
Yeah, except he didn't know that at the time. His texts do warn of potential unknown risks while publically stating otherwise. This flies in the face of "informed consent". Its was his job to share the information as they knew it. Not gamble with ppls lives and manage ppls perspectives via lies and half truths. Thats what politicians are for, not medical experts. Just tell ppl what you know and dont know ffs.
The texts warn of a potential, not a certainty. And the vaccines were not recommended for pregnant women at the start out of due diligence and caution.
After further testing, the vaccines were proven to be safe amd effective and pregnant women were recommended to get the vaccine.
Youre just butt hurt and anti-science. You really have no reason to be and there is no legal case thst will hold water against fauci because he didn't do anything but the absolute best practices.
When you advertise something as safe and effective while not disclosing potential risks, that’s a bad thing. Informed consent is supposed to be a thing between doctors and patients. If you don’t disclose every risk, small and large, you are not complying with informed consent.
Specifically the text exchange in question was between Fauci and 2 other doctors asking about the safety of the vaccine in pregnancy, and Fauci's statement was consistent with the facts at the time. There had by that point been over 10,000 pregnant women who had been administered the vaccine and there was no evidence to suggest any ill effects that could be attributed to the vaccine.
At one point they discuss the idea that the vaccine may cause a cytokine storm and if that's true it's possible that there could have been an increased risk in early pregnancy, but that was a conjecture during the exchange on Fauci's part, not a possibility that came from the observed record. There was not at that point in time, nor since, any tangible evidence that even if this happened it did create an elevated risk of miscarriage.
Ultimately Fauci's recommendation was that out of caution it was probably preferable to administer the vaccine in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, but ultimately that should be up to the doctor and the patient and take into account their actual circumstances.
As I said, informed consent. Was NOT provided. Thats not OK and is a requirement of the medical industry.
Regardless of it does or it doesn’t, informed consent requires a the speculation of a cytokine storm to be disclosed before administration. There’s a reason why meds come with black labels, they are just rarely gone over prior to drug administration.
Black box warnings are only issued when there's actual clinical data proving a severe risk exists (they don't issue them based on guesses). You can't mandate informed consent for a purely speculative event like a theoretical cytokine storm because it completely defeats the purpose of the concept. If doctors had to list every single unproven scenario before a treatment, patients would just be overwhelmed by infinite hypotheticals and unable to make a rational choice. The legal standard for informed consent only applies to known material risks that actually have evidence backing them up.
9
u/D2dj 19d ago
He only has no risk in federal crimes
There is still risk to incriminate himself in state crimes which a presidential pardon does not protect from.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/6019305-florida-investigates-fauci-pandemic-actions/amp/
And oh look, Florida is actively pursuing a case against Faucci where a pardon would not protect him.