[Goose]

3) He was selected not because of his expertise but because his belief aligns with Trump so they could exploit his credentials to sanctify their unscientific approach.  This, in particular, makes him a "tool".  They are using him to advance an agenda that is not agreed to by real experts like Fauci.

He would be a "tool" if his beliefs were formed for the purpose of pleasing Trump. As you have pointed out, those beliefs predate his selection to the advisory board. Undoubtedly, he doesn't believe his views are "unscientific". I can't imagine what his rationale may be, but I haven't heard it yet, and I doubt that I will ever have the opportunity to do so. Those questions just aren't asked these days.

Is there some other meaning of the word "tool" that I'm being criticized for using here?  Because I also think he's an ass for being on the wrong side of the scientific debate and not actually examining the evidence counter to his position, particularly since he's already been off by more than 10x.  I think he's violating his Hippocratic Oath and clearly doing harm.

A "tool" is somebody or something that does your bidding, no matter what that bidding may be. Scott Atlas hasn't done that. His position has been consistent. Consistently wrong probably (OK, most assuredly IMHO), but not derived from Trump's influence.
I guess Einstein was also on the wrong side of the "scientific debate" when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". Fortunately for him, there was no Hippocratic Oath to violate. Dr. Fauci has also been wrong a few times as well, as he would be (and has been) fully honest about (mostly). Note also that many of the models we still are using during this epidemic were wildly incorrect in their forecasts until they were "improved". The "wrong side" of scientific debate has a history of being a moving target. Do I think there is any chance at all that Scott Atlas has been correct in his predictions? Obviously not, as the facts speak for themselves. Do I know that he has ignored the fact he has been wrong and has failed to examine arguments against his position? No, I don't know that. With respect, I don't think you know that either. You and I would both find it hard to understand how he can continue to hold the positions he does in the face of what we think we know. Let's hear what he has to say (if he ever even attempts to justify his position).
I agree he has absolutely no business being on the COVID-19 team at the federal level. There are plenty of better qualified candidates. However, Trump wants somebody who agrees with him, and that is what he got. President's do that. This POTUS has a history of appointing "yes" men who eventually say "no". Then they become "very, very bad". and resign.

[Goose]

3) He was selected not because of his expertise but because his belief aligns with Trump so they could exploit his credentials to sanctify their unscientific approach.  This, in particular, makes him a "tool".  They are using him to advance an agenda that is not agreed to by real experts like Fauci.

He would be a "tool" if his beliefs were formed for the purpose of pleasing Trump. As you have pointed out, those beliefs predate his selection to the advisory board. Undoubtedly, he doesn't believe his views are "unscientific". I can't imagine what his rationale may be, but I haven't heard it yet, and I doubt that I will ever have the opportunity to do so. Those questions just aren't asked these days.

Is there some other meaning of the word "tool" that I'm being criticized for using here?  Because I also think he's an ass for being on the wrong side of the scientific debate and not actually examining the evidence counter to his position, particularly since he's already been off by more than 10x.  I think he's violating his Hippocratic Oath and clearly doing harm.

A "tool" is somebody or something that does your bidding, no matter what that bidding may be. Scott Atlas hasn't done that. His position has been consistent. Consistently wrong probably (OK, most assuredly IMHO), but not derived from Trump's influence.
I guess Einstein was also on the wrong side of the "scientific debate" when he said "God does not play dice with the universe". Fortunately for him, there was no Hippocratic Oath to violate. Dr. Fauci has also been wrong a few times as well, as he would be (and has been) fully honest about (mostly). Note also that many of the models we still are using during this epidemic were wildly incorrect in their forecasts until they were "improved". The "wrong side" of scientific debate has a history of being a moving target. Do I think there is any chance at all that Scott Atlas has been correct in his predictions? Obviously not, as the facts speak for themselves. Do I know that he has ignored the fact he has been wrong and has failed to examine arguments against his position? No, I don't know that. With respect, I don't think you know that either. You and I would both find it hard to understand how he can continue to hold the positions he does in the face of what we think we know. Let's hear what he has to say (if he ever even attempts to justify his position).
I agree he has absolutely no business being on the COVID-19 team at the federal level. There are plenty of better qualified candidates. However, Trump wants somebody who agrees with him, and that is what he got. President's do that. This POTUS has a history of appointing "yes" men who eventually say "no". Then they become "very, very bad". and resign.