This is a silly argument. Yes, Fauci's name is last on those articles; that means he wasn't much involved in the research, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't know what it was about, or that he doesn't understand scientific data. Pedaldad, you yourself said in an earlier post that doctors' ideas about what should be done in this crisis depended on their political leanings; that means that every doctor is "political". And yes, they are, of course; "political" means that they have differing approaches and philosophies to risk and benefit. You can cite Ioannidis and Bhattacharya (who, I would note, are the last authors on many articles, such as the Santa Clara antibody one), and others can cite Bergstrom and Lipsitch. Epidemiologists don't agree. They are all "political." Anyone who works in government has to be "political" in a different sense, namely to be aware of the meaning of data and interpretation to policies that the government either will or will not support because of their broad social and economic implications. So calling Fauci "political" is simply stating a fact.
I think back to all the discussions on this site of "politics" in baseball... Some pretty heated discussions about whether that exists or not.