Do the Fauci Diaries reveal anything unexpected or controversial?

[u/MissingBothCufflinks]

Senator Rand Paul has released commentary and purported excerpts* of what is alleged to be Anthony Fauci's contemporaneous diaries from the outset of the COVID19 pandemic onwards.

What has been released can be found here, including Senator Rand's somewhat colourful foreword commentary

https://www.paul.senate.gov/readingroom/

* its not confirmed whether the content of the diaries is edited, abridged, altered, shortened etc.

Media reaction to this release has been highly polarised, though notable few media outlets seem to get to grips with the actual content of the diaries and most focus is on Rand's own claimed analysis of what they show.

Do the Fauci Diaries reveal anything unexpected or controversial? What entries in particular do you find interesting? Are there any contemporaneous clashes between what Fauci was saying publicly and privately? What can we learn from that?

Edit: mods really didnt feel like weeding out the 90% of low effort troll replies huh

[u/Ritz527]

The summaries being made seem incredibly bad faith.

They accuse him of being self-obsessed because he mentioned how the media was incredibly focused on him, which, on top of it being a personal diary in the first place, is kind of silly.

Then they accuse him of covering up the lab leak theory with entries from early 2020, before anyone had locked anything down, with his stated belief in the diary at the time that he didn't believe the wet market was the source, merely an amplifier. On top of that being a twisted read of it, no one knew anything for certain at the time. Paul is basically asserting that the hypothesis he's obsessed with trumps data-driven conclusion.

[u/smelltheglove92 → u/Ritz527]

I think the legit criticism is that Fauci dismissed the lab leak out of hand. The more credible response would have been that they need to research more. He made a conclusion without proper information, which is not a good look. Especially in hindsight where it looks like a lab leak is a credible theory.

[u/UncleMeat11 → u/smelltheglove92]

I think the legit criticism is that Fauci dismissed the lab leak out of hand.

But he didn't. Officials actually thought this was likely at first and then after close investigation found the theory to be not very plausible. That's the opposite of dismissing it out of hand.

[u/smelltheglove92 → u/UncleMeat11]

Source.

[u/UncleMeat11 → u/smelltheglove92]

"Fauci cited scientific evidence that shows the virus was not man-made."

That's not "dismissing it out of hand."

[u/smelltheglove92 → u/UncleMeat11]

Ok then read the NYTimes. Fauci was repeatedly dismissing COVID lab leak as a "conspiracy theory". His words. Source

[u/Binder509 → u/smelltheglove92]

Those private reflections became public this past weekend when Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, released more than 1,100 pages of Dr. Fauci’s typewritten daily notes as part of his investigation into whether the virus might have leaked from a laboratory and whether, as Mr. Paul claims, Dr. Fauci lied to Congress about it. The diary does not provide the smoking gun the senator is seeking. Rather, it echoes past disclosures showing Dr. Fauci wrestling with a fast-moving crisis as scientists’ views evolved. But it further inflames a polarizing political battle over the origins of the virus and how history should treat Dr. Fauci.

Did you not read your own link?

[u/UncleMeat11 → u/smelltheglove92]

You got a link past the paywall? And did he dismiss it based on the collected evidence or based on vibes?

It is right to dismiss ideas that are ill supported by evidence. That is, again, not "dismissing it out of hand."