Dave, it is a sad and damning testament to the state of the corporate media that so many people end up with opinions about science similar to your own, for that is where they originate; a million stupid, contradictory articles that begin “scientists say…”, and then tell us nothing about the evidence, data or theory. One scientist is said to “reveal” something, and then another “challenges” it, a bit like Jedi Knights. Science is presented as didactic statements from authority figures in white coats, many of whom are in fact quacks and have no scientific standing whatsoever, because most journalists wouldn’t know how to check.
But some people can do science for themselves, or at least assess whether the arguments are valid. Just because you don’t understand a thing doesn’t mean that no one else does. You have consistently presented me with arguments that you think are scientific, but I can see that they are crafted to deceive. The “CO2 is a tiny proportion of the atmosphere” is one such argument; it has superficial plausibility, nothing more. I tried to show you that it is misleading by showing you that far less colourant makes methylated spirits purple; I tried to put that tool of judgement in your own hands, to empower you, but to no avail. Likewise the collapses of the Twin Towers; I presented my methods and working entirely in public on the 9/11 thread, but again, you were unable or unwilling to make use of my offering, preferring evidence-free assertions that the collapses were impossible without explosives.
There is more to assessing a piece of science than determining who paid for it; such hidden motive arguments are mere conspiracy theory, that’s what the term means. And there is far more to the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 and CoVID-19 than the work of Fauci and ICL.
You can learn how to assess scientific claims by reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.