Why Didn’t Fauci Want Young Men and Pregnant Women to Know the Risks?
By Peter Navarro | The Daily Signal | October 20, 2026
On Nov. 15, 2021, Anthony Fauci wrote a decision about COVID-19 booster shots in his private diary.
Push the booster on every adult in America. Do it, he wrote, “no matter what the ACIP says”—that is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the independent panel of outside experts that votes on who should get which vaccines. The panel had not voted yet.
Do it “despite the fact that there was concern about myocarditis in younger men.” Do it because otherwise, “the message of who should get boosted is ambiguous.”
There is the whole scandal in a single entry. A known risk to young men’s hearts, named by Fauci himself, in the same breath as the decision—and then set aside. Not on the evidence, but because it muddied the message.
Four days later, the government expanded booster eligibility to every adult in America, including young men.
This was not the first time something like this happened. Ten months earlier, Fauci and the two officials about to take over the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the surgeon general’s office had discussed, among themselves, whether a second dose might carry a first-trimester miscarriage risk. Fauci raised the issue, and his colleagues agreed it was a good point. Then the government didn’t say anything about red flags to pregnant women considering the shot.
Same man. Same move. Ten months apart. Name the risk in private. Give the public the message.
This is an ethical collapse on a grand scale, and I lay it all out in my new book “Why Fauci MUST Rot in Prison.”
Take the young men.
That the mRNA vaccines can inflame the heart muscle is no fringe allegation—the Food and Drug Administration revised its vaccine fact sheets in 2021 to reflect the data. The CDC’s advisory committee met publicly on June 23, 2021, to review the signal. The only thing that remained contested was the magnitude of the danger. The agencies themselves recognized that those most at risk were adolescent and young-adult males in the days after a dose.
COVID-19 was never an equal-opportunity killer; its danger fell steeply with youth. The myocarditis signal, on the other hand, appeared to rise in young men. When the risk of a disease and the risk of the intervention point in opposite directions across the age curve, a single national answer—one schedule for the 80-year-old woman and the 19-year-old man alike—is hardly a triumph of science.