Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared before the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, where he invoked the Fifth Amendment 111 times, declining to answer questions. His testimony followed the release of his diary by Senator Rand Paul the previous week.

Dr. Fauci served as a central figure in the government-backed public health establishment that advocated and implemented COVID-19 lockdowns across the United States in 2020. As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) from 1984 to 2022, and chief medical advisor to the president, Fauci became one of the most visible public officials shaping the federal pandemic response. While Fauci remained silent during the hearing, his diary has drawn public scrutiny, with critics characterizing its contents as revealing a pattern of sycophantic behavior toward superiors and dismissiveness toward subordinates.

Steve Hanke, a Senior Contributing Columnist at Fortune and Professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University, has been a prominent critic of lockdown policies. Hanke, together with Jonas Herby of Denmark and Lars Jonung of Sweden, conducted a comprehensive scientific literature review and meta-analysis examining whether lockdowns effectively reduced COVID-19 mortality.

The researchers identified 19,646 potential studies, ultimately narrowing the set to 22 that could be converted into standardized estimates suitable for rigorous meta-analysis. Their findings concluded that lockdowns had a negligible impact on COVID-19 mortality while imposing substantial economic and social costs.

According to the meta-analysis, lockdowns saved an estimated 6,000 to 23,000 lives in Europe and 4,000 to 16,000 lives in the United States. By comparison, a typical flu season accounts for approximately 72,000 deaths in Europe and 38,000 deaths in the United States. The researchers concluded that, based on this evidence, COVID lockdowns constituted a significant public policy error.

The findings were published in two peer-reviewed venues: a book titled Did Lockdowns Work? The Verdict on Covid Restrictions, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs in London (PDF), and a journal article in Public Choice (link). The Institute of Economic Affairs is a free-market think tank, and Public Choice is a peer-reviewed economics journal published by Springer.

Hanke reports that the research faced significant pushback from established figures within the government-sponsored public health sector. According to Hanke, the authors encountered censorship at the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), an academic preprint platform operated by Elsevier (source). Hanke also describes coordinated fact-checking efforts and critical articles that he characterizes as lacking analytical rigor. The debate reflects a broader post-pandemic reassessment, as researchers, policymakers, and legislators continue to examine the tradeoffs of emergency public health measures implemented with limited real-time data.

Hanke draws a parallel to Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek's analysis in Chapter XI of The Road to Serfdom, titled "The End of Truth," suggesting a systematic suppression of dissenting scientific findings.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Steve Hanke is a Senior Contributing Columnist at Fortune and a Professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University. He is a co-author of Did Lockdowns Work? The Verdict on Covid Restrictions.