Internally subjunctive, publicly imperative: Fauci and the refused clarification

January 25, 2021, 4:31 p.m., Washington: The future Surgeon General of the United States asks via text message whether there is any data on COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant women. The CDC director replies that it's all "data free." Anthony Fauci agrees, and two hours later warns of cytokine storms and theoretical miscarriages in the first trimester—and nine days later, he stands before the cameras: "No red flags." Five and a half years later, his official cell phone lies on the table in the US Senate, and suddenly everyone involved in the same story is selectively removing the exact phrases that don't suit their agenda.

On August 5, 2026, the US Department of Health and Human Services handed over Fauci's official iPhone to the Senate : over 34,000 text messages, 522 voice messages, and—particularly amusing—only three saved contacts. Senators Ron Johnson and Rand Paul released the first excerpts on August 10 and 16 , respectively. The timing was no coincidence: A week earlier, during his confirmation hearing, Fauci had invoked the Fifth Amendment 111 times, and the Homeland Security Committee had reprimanded him for contempt of Congress.

The message thread itself reads like the script of a government agency flying blind: At 16:31 p.m., Vivek Murthy asks if there is any data or theoretical reason to vaccinate early or late in pregnancy. At 16:48 p.m., CDC Director Rochelle Walensky replies that it's all "data free." At 16:56 p.m., Fauci concurs: No data, no theoretical reason. At 17:47 p.m., John Mascola, director of the vaccine research center at the NIAID, interjects: He corrects himself, the initial studies avoided vaccinations in the first trimester—because of possible fever and higher miscarriage rates. Fauci reads this at 18:42 p.m. Three minutes later, he texts Murthy and Walensky that many people experience a significant cytokine storm with fever after the second dose, which could theoretically be linked to first-trimester miscarriages. Walensky's response: Definitely a good point.

On February 3, 2021, the same Fauci appeared in an interview with JAMA and announced that the FDA had seen no warning signs in over 10,000 vaccinated pregnant women—caution was necessary, but so far: no red flags. Over the course of the year, this caution evaporated completely: In August 2021, he declared there was no evidence of any problems and it was quite clear that pregnant women should get vaccinated. In September, Walensky strongly recommended the vaccination —before or during pregnancy, it didn't matter, as long as the needle was in.

The scandal-mongers are using this to claim that Fauci knew the vaccine caused miscarriages and lied. To do so, however, they have to amputate two words. "Theoretical" becomes "known," and the clause about caution is dropped entirely. Ironically, even the Republican-led committee admits in its own statement that it still doesn't know which "initial studies" Mascola was referring to—and whether the higher miscarriage rates were vaccine-related or simply the already high natural loss rate in the first trimester. The 82 percent calculation by gynecologist James Thorp, which the senator also circulated, is a sleight of hand: Anyone who removes 700 women vaccinated in the third trimester from the NEJM registry study while keeping the remaining 127, even though most of their pregnancies were still ongoing, is just as creative as the opposing side.

Which brings us to the ARD (German public broadcaster). Their "fact-checker" categorically declares the accusations false – and then offers Fauci a convenient excuse: Between the text message at the end of January and the interview at the beginning of February, initial figures on the risks of vaccination for pregnant women were published. They're referring to the CDC presentation from January 27, 2021. However, this presentation lists around 15,000 pregnancies reported to the v-safe reporting system and a registry under development – ​​but an analysis of miscarriages is nowhere to be found. The first reliable figures appeared in the NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) in April 2021, and even the accompanying editorial admitted that no conclusions could yet be drawn regarding spontaneous abortions. The public broadcaster's chief defender is thus polishing a flimsy veneer of exculpatory evidence – precisely the kind of leniency he accuses the other side of.

To be honest: The data sets that were later actually available found no increased risk of miscarriage. Neither a meta-analysis of 23 studies with 117,552 vaccinated pregnant women nor a second one involving 149,685 women , whose authors declared no conflicts of interest, found any such increase. The theoretical risk did not materialize. But that answers the wrong question: The scandal was never that the concern later dissipated, but that the campaign's self-assurance preceded the data.

Because that's precisely what it's about: informed consent. Internally, the three most powerful health officials in the US wrote in the subjunctive mood – publicly, they spoke in the imperative. This pattern is all too familiar on this side of the Atlantic: even the redacted RKI (Robert Koch Institute) protocols revealed an agency that internally doubted what it publicly presented as the only option. The subjunctive mood would have been appropriate for the pregnant women who faced this decision in the spring of 2021. Instead, they were served a certainty that simply didn't exist at that time, garnished with the tried-and-tested tricks of pandemic communication . And when the questions arose, the familiar program of the health establishment's self-appointed prophets followed : silence, lawyers, and refusal to testify.

What remains is a record that none of the opposing sides are willing to read aloud in its entirety. A cell phone that only surfaces after five years and massive pressure from the Senate. An address book that has shrunk to three contacts. A witness who refuses to testify 111 times. A fact-checker who fabricates exoneration where no data existed. And a public that never heard the subjunctive mood. Anyone who handles the truth like this shouldn't be surprised by dwindling trust – they've earned it through sheer bluffing!