Yeah I think he was regarded as competent as far as institute directors go (which of course isn't saying much). But it's not his competence that is at issue he

Yeah I think he was regarded as competent as far as institute directors go (which of course isn't saying much). But it's not his competence that is at issue here, so much as his moral compass, and his lacking commitment to continuing education. The most obvious marks on his record, prior to covid, were the ire he drew from gay men during the AZT fiasco (I imagine you've seen this photo, for example: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EapU2PGWsAAvxfb?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EapU2PGWsAAvxfb?format=jpg&name=...), and his role in supporting rather recklessly thought-out gain-of-function research (from, eg, CambridgeWG and co). No response that NIAID has ever given provides the appearance that Fauci is personally committed to continuing education sufficient to respond to CambridgeWG's critiques, and frankly, his understanding seems to be closer to the level of amateurs like me (although his purse strings have little in common :-) ). I think it's fair to say that he has always been a controversial figure, a friend to pharma and defense profiteers, and often a media darling. He has made funding decisions which have led to wonderful discoveries and deserves a great deal of credit for those. But I don't think he's particularly notable for any groundbreaking epidemiological research or insight. And, although it may still be taboo to say it, he has spent and squandered whatever respect he may have had left with his colleagues. Even those who may have agreed with his bizarre public health policy advocacy seem to agree that he got into a horrific conflict of interest from which he was unable to escape except by resignation. So it's not necessarily a matter of competence.