Before Faucism, Science Endured Lysenkoism

We've Seen Politics Pervert Science Before. It Never Ends Well

With Anthony “the science” Fauci making up new theories about infectious disease almost daily--the latest is his apparent rejection of his own “Five (Fictional) Phases Of A Pandemic” disease model--it is fitting to take a step back to consider an earlier infamous episode of scientific bastardy, the career of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. For the corruption of science by ideology, for the persecution of thought, for the sheer lunacy of his ideas, Trofim Lysenko stands alone in the pantheon of genuine mad scientists (or did before Anthony Fauci entered the picture).

Not Just A Mad Scientist, But A Bad Scientist

It is difficult to accurately describe Lysenko's scientific incompetence—he was that bad at basic research. In his most memorable mistake, he concluded that plants “learned” from their environment after observing pea seeds germinating faster in low temperatures.

Ten years after the 1917 Revolution in Russia, a plant-breeder in the struggling Soviet Union named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko observed that pea seeds germinated faster when maintained at low temperatures. Instead of concluding that the plant's ability to respond flexibly to temperature variations was a natural characteristic, Lysenko erroneously concluded that the low temperature forced its seeds to alter their species.

Lysenko would expand on this to craft his “Theory of Nutrients”, using his vernalization experiments as the foundation for his biological theories, which largely rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of Ivan Michurin and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, two discredited scientists who promoted an evolutionary theory by which acquired characteristics were passed on to subsequent generations. As might be expected of ideas grounded in mistake, Lysenko's Theory of Nutrients was completely fallacious.

Bad logic and bad methodologies were the hallmarks of Lysenko's research efforts.

As a result, Lysenko came up with some breathtakingly bad ideas. He asserted, for example, that in the proper conditions wheat seed could yield rye grain. He also claimed to have produced cuckoo birds from warblers. In his “law of life of the species” plants from the same “class” (a term he used in its Marxist political sense rather than in reference to the Linnaean taxonomy that is de rigeur in the life sciences) would never compete with each other, and so seeds could be planted closer together to improve crop yields. He also opposed the use of fertilizer and pesticides.

He was serious about all of this. That is how bad of a biologist and agronomist he was.

Communist Ideologue And Fanatic

Yet Trofim Lysenko was not merely a crank and a mad bad scientist. He was also a dedicated Communist who embraced the revolutionary ideas of Lenin and Trotsky without reservation. In Lysenko's view, scientific theory needed to reflect and be based on Marxist political theory.

The very spirit of Marxist theory, Lysenko claimed, called for a theory of species formation which would entail "revolutionary leaps." Lysenko attacked Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution as a theory of "gradualism.”

Genetics and evolution are foundational to modern biology, and were in the early 20th century as well, yet Lysenko was willing to jettison both for the sake of Communist ideology.

His political fervor quickly endeared him to the nascent Soviet leadership, and he was especially able to dazzle Josef Stalin, who enabled and advanced Lysenko's career. In 1929, four years after completing a doctorate in agricultural science, he was the senior specialist in the department of physiology of the Ukrainian All-Union Institute of Selection and Genetics in Odessa, and by 1935 he became the Institute's scientific director and later director. In 1940, Stalin tapped Lysenko to be director of the Institute of Genetics of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. Lysenko went on to become president of the V.I. Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, which put him in position to direct nearly all Soviet scientific research for the next few decades.

At no time during this period was he ever taken to task for the lunacy of his ideas, or the complete lack of reproducible experimental data to support them.

Lysenko Lied, Millions Died

Just as Stalin enabled Lysenko's career, Lysenko returned the favor by telling Stalin what he wanted, even needed, to hear to justify his genocidal campaign of collectivization of Ukrainian farms, producing the infamous “Holodomor” famine of 1932-1933.

In 1932, the Communist Party set impossibly high quotas for the amount of grain Ukrainian villages were required to contribute to the Soviet state. When the villages were not able to meet the quotas, authorities intensified the requisition campaign, confiscating even the seed set aside for planting and levying fines in meat and potatoes for failure to fulfill the quotas. Special teams were sent to search homes and even seized other foodstuffs. Starving farmers attempted to leave their villages in search of food, but Soviet authorities issued a decree forbidding Ukraine’s peasants from leaving the country. As a result, many thousands of farmers who had managed to leave their villages were apprehended and sent back, virtually a death sentence. A law was introduced that made the theft of even a few stalks of grain an act of sabotage punishable by execution. In some cases, soldiers were posted in watchtowers to prevent people from taking any of the harvest. Although informed of the dire conditions in Ukraine, central authorities ordered local officials to extract even more from the villages. Millions starved as the USSR sold crops from Ukraine abroad.

As the architect of the famine, Stalin is justly condemned for ordering genocide. Yet Stalin was enabled in his murderous endeavor by Lysenko and his profoundly unscientific theories and claims, which promised significant leaps in crop yields while bringing millions of hectares of Soviet land under new cultivation.

With such “scientific” support, Stalin was free to proceed as he wished in Ukraine, and when the crop yields failed to materialize, Stalin tapped Lysenko to solve the problem.

Such claims were exactly what Soviet leaders wanted to hear. In the late 1920s and early 1930s Joseph Stalin—with Lysenko’s backing—had instituted a catastrophic scheme to “modernize” Soviet agriculture, forcing millions of people to join collective, state-run farms. Widespread crop failure and famine resulted. Stalin refused to change course, however, and ordered Lysenko to remedy the disaster with methods based on his radical new ideas. Lysenko forced farmers to plant seeds very close together, for instance, since according to his “law of the life of species,” plants from the same “class” never compete with one another. He also forbade all use of fertilizers and pesticides.

For his part, Lysenko embraced Stalin's approach to opposition: eliminate it through arrest, incarceration, and execution. With Stalin as his patron, Lysenko could and frequently did end the careers (and lives) of many scientists who challenged his ideas and methods.

The victory of the Stalin faction within the ruling party changed the previously nurturing relationship between the Soviet State and science. Important developments in science (including what we would term today as social sciences) were terminated by state terror. During the 1930s and 1940s, scientists were routinely executed, imprisoned, or exiled. Soviet science was largely carried forward in specially built labor camps, where scientists denounced as "saboteurs" continued their work in total isolation from the outside world.

Under Lysenko's leadership, scientific truth was always subordinate to political truth. When the data disagreed with the narrative, the data was either suppressed or revised by dubious methods to bring it into alignment with the politically decreed narrative “truth”.

Under Stalin and Lysenko, scientific truth became both incompatible and inappropriate to political truth. Information on genetics was eliminated from Soviet biology textbooks, and Lysenko attempted to reduce his conflict with classical geneticists to political contradictions. Lysenko stated that there existed two class-based biologies: "bourgeois" vs. "socialist, dialectical materialist." The entire agricultural research infrastructure of the Soviet Union—a country with millions whose lives teetered on starvation—was devoted to a disproved scientific hypothesis, and inventive methods were used to falsely "prove" that there was no famine and that crop yields were actually on the rise.

It is no exaggeration to summarize Lysenko's scientific career, especially in the 1930s, thus: “Lysenko Lied, tens of millions died.” Both the Holodomor and the broader Soviet famine of the same time can be laid directly at Trofim Lysenko's doorstep, and an accurate body count of the death his theories caused will never be known.

Sound Familiar? Welcome To Faucism

Pseudoscience. Data suppression. Reprisal and censorship. If the hallmarks of Lysenko's career sound familiar, they should. We are witnessing them at work with every news channel appearance by Anthony Fauci and his colleagues, including CDC Director Rochelle Walensky.

As the politization of Soviet agronomy gave us Lysenkoism, so too should the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic provide us with “Faucism". Both terms describe the same scientific bastardy, the same corruption of official organs of scientific research and development. In both cases, the corruption is shown to be highly destructive and even lethal to human lives.

Let us consider just some of the evidence.

Fauci's September 10, 2021, comments regarding the Israeli study establishing natural immunity as superior to vaccination in warding off COVID-19:

The one thing that paper from Israel didn't tell you is whether or not as high as the protection is with natural infection, what's the durability compared to the durability of a vaccine? So it is conceivable that you got infected, you're protected, but you may not be protected for an indefinite period of time.

One month earlier, Fauci admitted the vaccines’ protection was not durable.

White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said Thursday everybody will someday “likely” need a booster shot of the Covid-19 vaccines.

“We’re already starting to see indications of some diminution” in the durability of the vaccines, Fauci told “CBS This Morning.”

Yet, in May of 2021, Fauci asserted the vaccines were superior to natural immunity.

"Vaccines, actually, at least with regard to SARS-CoV-2 [the coronavirus] can do better than nature," Fauci, America's leading infectious disease expert, said. "Vaccination in people previously infected significantly boosts the immune response."

What does the actual science say about natural immunity?

• There is the January, 2021, study showing that 95% of people who had a prior COVID-19 infection had durable immunity. This study is noteworthy as it predates the general availability of vaccines.

• There is the June, 2021 study by the Cleveland Clinic showing vaccines offered no benefit to those who had already had a COVID-19 infection.

• There is, of course, the August, 2021, Israeli study Fauci tried to dismiss by ignoring his own earlier admission that the vaccines didn't last.

• There is the recent study published in JAMA and highlighted by science journalist Alex Berenson showing natural immunity is indeed durable.

In other words, the actual scientific data has never supported Fauci's views on the efficacy of vaccines versus natural immunity. Fauci simply ignored the data in favor of his own made-up narrative.

Making up scientific principles about infectious disease is, as I detailed last month, nothing new for Anthony Fauci, whose “Five Stages of A Pandemic” are a complete fiction with no support in the clinical literature.

In a similar vein, Fauci ignored at least a decade's worth of research on the inefficacy of face masks as a public health strategy against infectious respiratory disease to insist on universal masking as an ongoing mitigation. Astoundingly, Fauci justified turning his back on that research by claiming his original stance against universal masking was a “noble lie".

"When it became clear that the infection could be spread by asymptomatic carriers who don't know they're infected, that made it very clear that we had to strongly recommend masks," he said.

"And also, it soon became clear that we had enough protective equipment and that cloth masks and homemade masks were as good as masks that you would buy from surgical supply stores," Fauci added. "So in the context of when we were not strongly recommending it, it was the correct thing."

In terms of reprisal for deviating from Fauci's orthodoxy, Fauci's email chains documenting the news media hit jobs he apparently coordinated against the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration are a damning indictment against him.

The emails, some of which were tweeted out on Saturday by Phil Magness, senior research faculty and interim research and education director at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), show Fauci and Francis Collins attempting to coordinate a 'devastating takedown' of the Great Barrington Declaration.

Nor does the culture of reprisal stop with Anthony Fauci. The news media have carried multiple accounts of medical doctors being stripped of their licenses for daring to prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 infection, or to challenge Fauci's vaccine orthodoxy.

• On December 3, 2020, Oregon pulled the license of Dr. Steven LaTulippe for comparing COVID-19 to the common cold.

• In March, 2021, British Columbia ER physician Dr. Charles Hoffe, was relieved of his duties for advancing an hypothesis that the mRNA vaccines carried a risk of blood clotting which could be dangerous and even lethal. Note that subsequent case studies confirm there is a clotting risk associated with the mRNA vaccines.

• In early January, 2022, the Maine medical board suspended the license of Dr. Meryl Nass, over her insistence on criticizing the vaccines and for recommending the use of hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin in treating COVID-19. Note that despite the FDA's dogged insistence there is no evidence supporting either drug as a COVID-19 therapeutic, there is a large and growing number of peer reviewed studies that show both drugs have therapeutic value.

The efforts by the Big Tech social media platforms to silence dissenting voices on COVID-19 are well documented, including my own permanent ban from LinkedIn. Dr. Robert Malone and vaccine critic Steve Kirsch have likewise been censored and suppressed.

This is the major difference between the original Lysenkoism and Faucism: corruption of the Soviet agricultural sciences largely began and ended with Lysenko, whereas the ideas and disease control methods promoted by Fauci have been embraced by governments and public health bureaucracies worldwide, aided and abetted by a corrupt and propagandistic mainstream media and Big Tech social media platforms. Faucism is Lysenkoism on a global scale.

Fauci, et al, Lied. We Don't Know How Many Died

What are the consequences of these reprisals and suppressions?

Arguably, countless lives could have been saved had the data on Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine been given fuller attention. The number of red flags showing significant safety risks and even dangers for the COVID-19 vaccines is surely enough to pull them back pending a more complete and more thorough investigation of those risks. Pfizer's own clinical trial data shows numerous adverse events, thus validating the VAERS data showing significant safety risks to the vaccines.

If the VAERS data is any guide, Fauci and his colleagues, by cultivating this culture of reprisal, censorship, and suppression, have contributed to tens of thousands of vaccine-related deaths at a minimum. That is going by the deaths actually recorded in VAERS, without considering the impact of likely underreporting of COVID-19 vaccine injuries and deaths. VAERS tells us only the lower bound of how many people have been harmed or killed by mRNA vaccines.

A full recitation of all the scientific falsehoods and incompetent mistakes would require an extended series of articles. The data is that extensive. Yet even the sliver of evidence Ihave provided here is sufficient to show how extensive the political rot regarding “the science” of COVID-19, the vaccines, and various potential therapeutics and treatment regimens.

This sliver of evidence is sufficient to show that Anthony Fauci and his colleagues lied, and we do not know how many people have died as a result. We know from the VAERS data the number of deaths just from the vaccines is unacceptably high.

The Data Has Not Changed

The most damning aspect of the evidence is the incontrovertible reality that the data has never changed. The safety data on vaccines has always shown significant risks and dangers. The efficacy data has always shown the vaccines were egregiously oversold. Natural immunity was documented and established even before the vaccines were broadly available. The inefficacy of universal masking against infectious respiratory disease has been documented for over a decade.

The data has not changed. The “science” has not changed.

All of this data is publicly available, much of it is peer-reviewed, and all of it should have been known to Anthony Fauci and Rochelle Walensky, as well as their respective staffs. If they did not know of this data then they should step aside for incompetence. If they did know they should face legal sanctions for what can only be described as depraved indifference to human suffering.

Lysenko was ultimately dismissed and discredited, and died in relative obscurity in 1976. Fauci is still entrenched in the Federal government’s public health bureaucracy. Neither he, nor Rochelle Walensky, nor anyone else who has participated in the politization and corruption of the scientific debate over COVID-19 and how to address the pandemic has thus far faced even that much of a reckoning.

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko put politics ahead of science and killed millions. Anthony Fauci and his colleagues put politics ahead science and are still killing untold numbers of people.

That is the inevitable outcome when science and politics are mixed: the scientists lie, and the people die.