I'm disputing direct correlation with Faucci, which is a very different proof to give and this reasoning is highly subjective and much abused with conspiracy theories.

After quickly looking it up:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-410618634223

https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/10/27/fauci-aids-drug-trial...

Even here the so called proof by the author is misleading and this was just the first one i even bothered to look up.

This was the main topic in the introduction of the book. I would expect better research instead of misleading one.

Additionally, the first result on Google is literally the site of the author's foundation.

Conspiracy theories are often based on far-fetched theories where the difference between truth and lies are misleading, similar to this example.

---

I'm sorry, but this book didn't pass the smell test.

Although I have to admit, it's a good attempt and it's been a while that I had to search for more than 5 minutes to be sure. Definitely because he actually seems to care about the environment, as mentioned before.

---

One simple trick would be ( from my POV) that the more people are required to work together for a conspiracy-theory to be successfull. The less likely it is.

Just look at the dozens of mistakes that are produced with one "unplanned live-show" orchestrated by a governement who prepared this for 8 years currently.

Those links shared weren't from the book, just a quick search to show that its not a totally fabricated scandal.

I will admit that there may be plenty of outrage, hyperbole, loose play with the facts in the book's AIDS chapters, but it does seem like a fact that (according to the book):

    Children of color in the New York foster system were experimented on with a toxic drug often against there will with dubious or missing consent and consent was often granted via the foster system for children that had no parents or guardians.

The book does take it further and cover things that don't have official documentation and includes testimony of people who worked at the facilities. Just because there is no official documentation doesn't mean we should discount the the word of the people who worked there.

Absolute Truth is indeed a tricky thing.

Even if the event happened, which can be possible. Blaming/Tying it to someone is a totally different thing, that would require totally different proof.

If the proof of the event already starts being doubtful within a couple of minutes of superficial checks. I don't think there is going to be anything left for tieing it to Faucci.

---

This is literally what the creator of the Vera report says when asked about the conspiracy theory of deaths:

> Tim Ross, a lead author of the Vera report, said in a phone interview that those suggesting the clinical trials were the cause of the 25 deaths were “completely misreading what we found.”

> “Our report does not support that claim,” said Ross, now the managing partner of Action Research, a child welfare research group. He noted that children who participated in such trials were “incredibly sick” before the trials.

Which seems pretty logical. People with aids then, didn't have the medical help they can have now.

He is a large feature of the book (perhaps for marketing?) but it also covers the history of the government health institutions associated with regulating the pharmaceutical industry.

The book is 400+ pages, too much content to summarize in a few comments on HN. I found it a fascinating read, you may as well or you may not.

Checking those things constantly is exhausting on a human. We tend to get lost in the details and thereby forgetting the main issue.

And I've got plenty of other things that I need to do, considering I also read HN ( = some procrastination :p ).