Jump to content

Talk:Anthony Fauci/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Ebola hearing

Is Fauci's role in the ebola hearing so notable that it deserves its own section? Because it certainly doesn't seem that way from what's in there.

At the most, maybe there should be a section on his tenure at NIAIC during the Obama administration, mentioning his role in the government's response to the ebola crisis. Or maybe (maybe) a section devoted to his overall role in the ebola crisis. Jesuschex (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Jesuschex I encourage anyone to do the things you suggested. Fauci has done a lot of big things in his life and among those, it is a peculiarity of the media that his impersonal statements of the consensus of NIAID have gotten more attention that almost anything else he has done. In those sources, ebola is the real news, not anything Fauci did other than speak as a figurehead. I do not think that content is wrong because that is the record in public sources, but it certainly could be presented better and with more of his work. I am glad someone added it as a first step. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Am I to understand that resources indexed by the OpenAIRE initiative and shared via Zenodo are all violations of WP:COPYLINK#Linking_to_copyrighted_works? My edit was reverted due to an edit with OAbot, and I want to know more about the claim that it was a violation of copyright. Thanks! —Tod Robbins (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You cannot assume that papers are posted legitimately. The paper at zenodo was the actual science paper that was published. Science's reprint policy is here - that article at Zenodo does not comply. Zenodo is full of such copyright violations and there is a request at Wikipedia_talk:OABOT#Zenodo to remove it from the suggestions, as too many people are being uncareful with OABOT suggestions for Zenodo. You (and every user of OABOT) are responsible for every edit you make, even if it is bot-assisted. You violated WP:COPYLINK. Please be more careful in the future. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
All of the links to Fauci's papers at Zenodo are flagged "open access." https://zenodo.org/search?page=1&size=20&q=fauci,%20# --Nbauman (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

New interview

[1] Hope that's useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It is. Thank you. I have added it to external links, pending possible use as a source. Kablammo (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the name of the disease?

I reverted an edit which merely duplicated what was there, but the name added by Natmazz was probably more clear than what was there. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Leading expert on infectious disease

Whoever keeps removing this, needs to stop. Its important to emphasize this to counter the spread of the conspiracy theories. ToddGrande (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Because the sentence at the start of the paragraph below already says exactly that. You need to recognize wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia and stop using pointed language. Natureium (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Over the past two months, the infobox photo has gone through the changes shown above. In summary, the arguments for the various images have been that the previous image looks bad, is too old, or is not official. It's gone through enough changes at this point that an actual discussion is warranted.

I'm not a fan of the official portrait, as the shadows down his left side and the right side of his face are out of place. He's a scientist, not some movie villain hiding in the dark. I don't like the 2018 photo either, as it was taken at an odd angle and is cropped far too closely. The 2020 photo is slightly better in that regard, but I still prefer the 2003 photo. It's also an official NIH portrait, just slightly older. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Support the 2020 photo I cropped the image specifically so that this page can have a recent pic of a subject who has been recently been a person of national interest amid the COVID outbreak. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the 2003 or 2007 official photo – The standard for government officials is to use the official photo; unless there is a consensus otherwise. The official photos look nicer as well. I'm support either the 2003 or 2007 photo. Corky 05:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Any photo not older than a couple years - This is per the guidance at MOS:LEADIMAGE - a reader would expect to see recent photos that represent how the subject appears today. Any photo which significantly departs from the subject's current appearance (such as being from 12-13 years ago) can be instantly eliminated from consideration. -- Netoholic @ 07:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 2003 portrait I think it's the best image as it portrays him in a clinical setting with the shelves behind him. Besides slightly whiter hair, he essentially looks the same as today. The 2007 portrait currently in use would be my second choice. ~ HAL333 19:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Deborah Birx's article uses a recent image over an outdated official portrait. Shouldn't Fauci follow? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 2007 portrait Idk if this is ongoing still, but i dont see anything wrong with the image that the article has now, even if its from 2007 he still looks recognisable, i mean theres a difference between someone who has aged a lot in in those years, and Fauci. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 2020 photo per Netoholic and TDKR Chicago 101. I must say I found it really strange to see such an old photo as the lead image here. --Andreas JN466 21:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 2020 photo per Netoholic, TDKR Chicago 101, and Jayen466. With everyone looking at this article in these times, it would make sense to have an image from this period. Geminin667 (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

International language edit from 'in the country' to 'in the USA'

'Fauci is widely seen to be one of the most trusted medical figures in the country' should be written as 'Fauci is widely seen to be one of the most trusted medical figures in the USA'. This sentence may not make sense outside of the USA, in my case I thought he was a professional who was in the UK that did work in America. Aside from not necessarily making sense, we should try to write in a way accessible to anyone who speaks English. I do concede that sense can be inferred from context but it is unnecessary I feel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryhog (talk • contribs) 11:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The immediately preceding sentence describes Fauci as one of the lead members of the Trump Administration's White House Coronavirus Task Force addressing the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in the United States. In this sense, the next sentence using the phrase Fauci is widely seen to be one of the most trusted medical figures in the country can only be interpreted as meaning the United States (the country mentioned immediately preceding). Use of "the United States" again in this context would be unnecessarily awkward and wordy. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Fauci funding Wuhan biolab for gain-of-function studies

How come there's no mention of this even after appearing in an allegedly "respected mainstream publication" like Newsweek (and others)?: https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741

Oh wait, I know why - because WP is weaponized to support false official narratives, more "mainstream" than "mainstream" due to WP:RS/WP:V + WP:FRINGE which define the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth", and "verifiability" means self-referential majority view of "respected mainstream publications" which have long been nothing of the sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.237.225.72 (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, because Newsweek hasn't been a "respected mainstream publication" since 2013. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Secondly, because this hatchet piece is an example of why it's no longer respected. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a good piece that describes the situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Right, Buzzfeed is a "respected mainstream publication", suuuure. And "There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable." Yeah, they're not the most in-your-face fake news of all, they have built a reputation of honest reliable news reporters, not as political activists willing to lie all the time. Absolutely insane. I mean, just imagine for a moment that it was Trump (or anyone else they want to destroy) who had funded these gain-of-function studies... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.237.225.72 (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This is covered in sources other than Newsweek, e.g - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-admin-pulls-nih-grant-coronavirus-research-ties/story?id=70418101. But it is the NIH who did the funding not Fauci, so I don't think it belongs in this article. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 17:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Science is a good source [2]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • According to Newsweek, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses. Yes, he does leads NIAID, but directors of NIH institutes normally do not decide which specific grants/projects will or will not be funded. This is decided by peer review of projects by NIH Study Sections. The director of an Institute suppose to only influence rather than unilaterally decide the general research priorities of their Institute like here. So, he has nothing to do with Wuhan funding (it was funded only indirectly). That has been decided by people from one of NIH Study Sections. Yes, he probably knew about the project, this is all. But of course, in exceptional cases, someone from the very top can cut the funding [3]. That has been criticized, and rightly so. A dangerous research? Yes, certainly. But what are the possible benefits and what precautions can be taken? Perhaps this worth the risk? Or not? This can only be decided by groups of experts, exactly as it is usually done. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems that when he's being specifically asked in press conferences whether he believes the virus could've escaped from the Wuhan lab, he should've disclosed that the agency he was heading had been funding that exact lab. I'm not saying it necessarily needs to go in the article right now, but if someone would happen to include his opinions on the Wuhan lab escape theory (he seems to be against it), this would definitely have to appear as a disclaimer. 46.109.139.100 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020: Early life and education

In the "Early life and education" section, "The pharmacy was ... one neighborhood away from his family home in Bensonhurst" is a misreading of the cited journal reference, which actually says: "The Faucis ran a neighborhood pharmacy at 13th Avenue and 83rd Street and lived in an apartment above." So, keeping the same journal reference, please change: 

  "one neighborhood away from his family home in Bensonhurst."

to either 

  "directly beneath the family apartment."

or 

  "one neighborhood away from his grandparents in Bensonhurst."

Many thanks. —72.68.81.94 (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for your contribution! — Tartan357 (Talk) 06:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Self Isolation

Dr. Fauci will be self isolating himself starting May 9, 2020 after being exposed to Covid patients in the White house — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jainvaibhav1307 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Fauci

I don’t understand why it is written that his father Fauci married Eugenia Fauci. It must be a mistake and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.160.31 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't find that anywhere. The article says Fauci was born in Brooklyn, New York City, to Stephen A. Fauci and Eugenia Abys Fauci, owners of a pharmacy. What are you seeing? Schazjmd (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

swiss origins

there are doubts about his swiss origins, because sites say sometime Giovanni Abyss was swiss sometime son of swiss parents.. --2.226.12.134 (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide citations to support or contradict his origins? A statement without support does not help us determine if this should be addressed. Jurisdicta (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2020

Change if the administration "started mitigation earlier" to if the administration HAD "started mitigation earlier" 69.127.210.231 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Schazjmd (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

current event tag?

Somebody added a "current event" tag to the article. I don't think it belongs there. He is no more in the news than he has been for the last 3 or 4 months - actually less right now. There is no rush to add current information - in fact the only edit today was to add the current events tag! Anyone agree that we should remove it? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree on removal. Schazjmd (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I just removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

italics

under § Memberships, it says:

’’ and as author, coauthor, or editor of more than 1,000 scientific publications, including several textbooks.

... which is causing the last part of the sentence to be italicized. i propose changing the two ’ marks to two ' marks for uniformity and so the last part of the sentence is not italicized. i have no idea how to use the template, so hopefully someone can come along and help.

173.85.192.32 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Schazjmd (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2020

He was born in 24th December 1940. So, in two days, he will be 80. Yet, It is written that he is 79 on the page which is false. So, I request change about this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.2.14.93 (talk)

 Not done: The article is correct as written. 1940 to 2020 is 80 years, so he's turning 80 this year (and is 79 now). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

New infobox image

Honestly, the current infobox image is pretty mediocre. It isn’t even close to contemporary, and it isn’t even a photograph from his period of greatest notability. I propose we change the image to this. It’s of similar quality, and it’s FAR more recent. Wikipedia policy is to generally use an image from the subject’s period of greatest notability, and I think that we can all agree that the answer for Fauci is NOT 2007. Any objections? The Image Editor (talk) 05:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

My proposal
Current image
In your proposed image, the doctor looks really young. The source material does not say when he was photographed. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@The Image Editor: & @BeenAroundAWhile:: Refer to the ongoing discussion -> here. I agree that the lead image must be a more recent image and we have candidates that were photographed in 2020. I'm honestly surprised its taking awhile even though it appears the overall consensus is that the current image is not suitable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I would say the photo of him in the dark jacket and blue shirt on the other page is more like the present-day guy than any of the others. As for the length of time in deciding, you can ask for more opinions at WP:Request for comment, which might bring in others to help read a decision. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr

hello i am new at this and opologize in advance if i am writing in the wrong place. I understand the page can not be edited but wish to make one suggestion for experiment sake of using this new website (for me)... i recently watched an interview with Professor Scott Atlas, in that interview his title professor was displayed before his name as is the custom in human society to address a professor or doctor by their title preceding their name usually abrieviated as Prof. or Dr. ... particularly if it is in a sentence where a Prof. is being discredited by a Dr. it is glaringly obvious, the blatant and transparent bias for those of us reading that sentence if we happen to already be familiar with the individual... for those who are unfamiliar with the individual, the writer's obvious intent to become partisan by omission of title for only one of two certified academics in argument is, needless to say, completely lost... once you click on the link, you discover that the newspaper did the same. A brief cursory glance at the wikipedia page of the unfairly discredited academic does however reveal that even wikipedia does actually admit he is a professor, so it seems only fair to call him Prof. in the same sentence as his academic counterpart is correctly labelled as Dr. ...or is that too much semantics for how it works here?? idk, pls tell me, cheers Gronk McNutsak (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC) : Hi Gronk McNutsak and welcome to Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, we do not add titles per MOS:CREDENTIAL. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Gronk McNutsak I realize what you mean now. I am unsure why Dr. was listed in the infobox section where the name should be. If anything, it should be listed under honorific_prefix if used at all. I apologize if this was previously discussed and I have missed this. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
You have my deepest respect for your success in finding out what Gronk was trying to say. That feat was far beyond me. Tip for @Gronk McNutsak: "Change X to Y" is generally better understood than long-winded justifications for a desired change that is never clearly expressed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo with President Bush

If you look at the photo that is clearly not the Presidential Medal of Freedom as mentioned in the photo caption. I am unsure what medal it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atwalker1993 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


The medal in the photograph is the National Medal of Science, which he was awarded in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactsDon'tCareAboutYourFeelings (talk • contribs) 05:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. The file description says "National Medal of Science", but dates the photo in 2007. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

HIV section

"1981 was the first he heard of the virus and after he and his team of researchers began looking for a vaccine or treatment for this novel virus, though they would meet a number of obstacles such as the F.D.A."

This is a bit weird. Why would the FDA be an obstacle in the search for a vaccine or treatment? That needs an explanation. Also, does it matter when he first heard about it? (Is the sentence missing a word? maybe "and after that he and his team"?) --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Selected Publications

The following published journal article should be added to the list of Selected Publications as it is of particular interest during the COVID19 Pandemic: Morens DM, Fauci AS (April 2007). "The 1918 influenza pandemic: Insights for the 21st century". The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 195 (7): 1018–1028. https://doi.org/10.1086/511989. PMID 17330793.

Added. Good suggestion. S T C Jones (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anthony S. Fauci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthony S. Fauci. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Gain of Function

https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/F30-AI149928-02?fbclid=IwAR0GpjoUpEzz6NqiAZA2Q8tenZPNlVy0hXFLeD9csgvu-wRtx7fY-tdu7Ko "I will completely characterize the ability of mutations to the Lassa virus entry protein to mediate antibody escape from three human monoclonal antibodies currently undergoing therapeutic development. These complete maps of antibody resistance will determine from which antibody it is most difficult for the virus to escape and help evaluate and refine potential antibody immunotherapies." This grant is currently active. Isn't this the definition of GOF? Here is a perma-URL to the general subject (link removed) You need not log on to FB. Charles Juvon (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Juvon: - not sure if this is an RS, or a secondary source. Furthermore, how does this relate to the subject of this article, Fauci? starship.paint (exalt) 08:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: - You might be correct. Perhaps we should lay a foundation with the recent Paul / Fauci conversation in the Senate. I don't see that in the article. Charles Juvon (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Charles Juvon: - well, what's the reliable source coverage of that conversation? starship.paint (exalt) 13:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: - I'll head for your Talk page to see if we can formulate a "to do" list. Charles Juvon (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You might want to read this recent article in the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/18/fact-checking-senator-paul-dr-fauci-flap-over-wuhan-lab-funding/ I'm not going to edit the article as it's far outside my area of expertise. deisenbe (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Clearly needs inclusion but.. it doesn't make Fauci look that good.. so.. Reaper7 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Medical Achievements

From the article, "Fauci has contributed to the understanding of how HIV destroys the body's defenses leading to the progression to AIDS. He has outlined the mechanisms of induction of HIV expression by endogenous cytokines. [citation needed]"

I would like to remove the "citation needed" and think I found a reference. However, I am not a scientist and don't know if this is correct. Here is the citation: Fauci, Anthony, 12 December 1996 Host Factors and the Pathogenesis of HIV-induced Disease, Nature, 384 (6609), 529-34, PMID: 8955267, DOI: 10. 1038/384529a0

I realize this is an old article, but the "citation needed" insert is referring to something he did in the past.

Could someone with a scientific and medical background take a look? Thanks. Cleveland Todd (talk) 18: 31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

In Reply to @Cleveland Todd:

With regard to the Nature article (Fauci, 1996), this is a review article, written by Dr. Fauci, in one of the most prestigious and general scientific journals. The author's own work is not a good source for the significance of his own work. I do not have a 3rd party reference, but you might continue searching forward citations, for instance at https://www.altmetric.com/details/3235299 In my library's ProQuest database the link to this particular article is broken.
In addition, this is a single account of that time period (https://naturemicrobiologycommunity.nature.com/users/332974-john-moore/posts/56543-how-hiv-enters-cells-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times-by-john-p-moore). At paragraph 4, it indicates that Fauci's role was to communicate from scientists to politicians recent developments in HIV research, particularly, a key mechanism that allowed HIV to infect cells. (Those discoveries, made by others, also described reasons ("host factors") why some people are less susceptible to HIV infection.)
The magazine of Holy Cross has an entertaining feature article about Fauci: https://www.holycross.edu/departments/publicaffairs/hcm/summer02/features/fauci.html
Sentences in this section of the Wikipedia article are identical to those in this NIAID biography: https://web.archive.org/web/20071030171118/http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/directors/biography/
It is my opinion that this entire section needs a rewrite.

Neurogeek (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In Reply to @Neurogeek: A quick search showed that Fauci authored or co-authored around 1000 articles, showing a mix of reviews and research papers, indicating a more active research background than a scientific communicator might do. Also generally on prestigious journals such as Nature, review articles are invited, and normally only some of the most well known and pioneering researchers on the subject are invited to review on the relevant subject. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Fauci%20AS%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=8955267

In Reply to @Neurogeek: Thanks. Very helpful. I'll take a look at the entire section. One more question: I understand how being the author of an article cited in one's Wikipedia article is not a good source. Fauci has been a co-author in a number of articles in reputable journals that discussed this very point. Could one of those be a more acceptable citation? Cleveland Todd (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

In Reply to @Cleveland Todd:

Thanks for continuing the conversation. Fauci's Wikipedia page is getting one hundred times more views this week than three weeks ago (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Anthony_Fauci). People will appreciate a more accurate and better written article.
Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. Further guidance on the biographies of living people, suggests avoiding primary and "self-published" sources in biographies.
I had a chance to read the Nature review article (Fauci, 1996). Therein, Dr. Fauci detailed the molecular mechanisms of HIV infection, as then known, and particularly highlighted the then-newsworthy discoveries of the most important molecules involved in HIV infection. His account focuses on the science, and does not explicitly highlight the importance of his own work. The question of "What were Dr. Fauci's greatest contributions to medicine?", is not addressed. It would require "original research", in the Wikipedia sense, to determine what the Fauci labs' contributions were to that exciting set of discoveries. Accordingly, I suggest not citing this article to establish what were Fauci's most important medical/scientific contributions.
A biography would be better. The Washington Post ran an article in 2007 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2007/09/28/anthony-fauci/), referencing Facui's receipt of the National Medal of Science and the Lasker Prize.
The Lasker Prize biography (http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/show/advancements-in-aids-relief-and-biodefense/)
The National Medal of Science biography (https://www.nationalmedals.org/laureates/anthony-s-fauci-md)
I hope this helps. Neurogeek (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
ps - Elsewhere on this talk page, Bluerasberry (talk · contribs) rightly observed, "Fauci has done a lot of big things in his life and among those, it is a peculiarity of the media that his impersonal statements of the consensus of NIAID have gotten more attention that almost anything else he has done." Neurogeek (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • for awards check out Wikidata's entry for this at Anthony Fauci (Q573246). Wikidata has a way of assisting wiki editors to import lists, like "all the people who have won a given award". It happens that it is easier to identify all awards, then see who won them, than it is to start with a person and find their awards. Some of that list at Wikidata lacks references but see if that could be a starting point for examination. Thanks for pinging me Neurogeek and Cleveland Todd I see that you are a bit new and probably overwhelmed but give a go at looking at Wikidata in this example, because if you see the kinds of things stored there then you should be better able to use this as a resource from now on. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

In Reply to @Neurogeek and Blue Rasberry: Thanks to both of you for your well-thought responses and tips for better citations. What I will do is add the Nature review article to Fauci's Selected Publications list. Cleveland Todd (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

In Reply to @Cleveland Todd and Bluerasberry: Thanks for pointing out the information in Wikidata at Anthony Fauci (Q573246). I started updating the links to professional societies biographies and awards statements there. The Lectureship Award from the American Association for Clinical Chemistry in 1998, indicated Facui's role in understanding HIV infection. I included that as a reference on the main page.

video

pd video here could be migrated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yJDq9DCUMw , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNxw2HCTks8 Victor Grigas (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. video2commons is working on a VOA video tonight. I will try to add it to this article tomorrow. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

3rd-highest salary in US government

There used to be a paragraph mentioning that Fauci's salary exceeds that of U.S. agency chiefs and members of Congress. https://www.federalpay.org/employees/national-institutes-of-health/fauci-anthony-s --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:D9B6:98DF:8F00:FA79 (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we mention Fauci helped fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology through a grant he signed off on to Peter Daszak?

Worth a mention or of no relevance to him or the global pandemic?[1] Reaper7 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Heres a WSJ article Reaper7 [2] EliteArcher88 (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@EliteArcher88: - that's an opinion piece in the WSJ "OPINION | REVIEW & OUTLOOK" (only usable for opinion, not facts, refer to WP:RSOPINION), do you have a WSJ news article (usable for facts)? starship.paint (exalt) 06:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Here's BusinessInsider on the possible leak [4], NBC [5], BBC [6], Fox News [7], Politico [8], Washington Examiner [9]. 73.120.83.182 (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
73, BusinessInsider, Fox and Examiner aren't so good sources. So, we have BBC (already in this article), NBC and Politico. Politico doesn't mention Fauci, so how can we use it here? We can use it on other articles. The below is what I quoted from BBC and NBC regarding Fauci and Daszak (that's what we are discussing here, right?). starship.paint (exalt) 04:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
BBC

On Thursday, Dr Fauci maintained there was nothing untoward in an email exchange between himself and an executive from a medical non-profit organisation that helped fund research at a diseases institute in Wuhan, the Chinese city where Covid-19 was first reported.

The NIH, which is a US public health agency, gave $600,000 (£425,000) to the Wuhan Institute of Virology from 2014-19 via a grant to the New York-based non-profit group EcoHealth Alliance, for the purpose of researching bat coronaviruses.

Peter Daszak, head of EcoHealth Alliance, emailed Dr Fauci in April 2020, praising him as "brave" for seeking to debunk the lab leak theory.

"Many thanks for your kind note," Dr Fauci replied.

Dr Fauci told CNN on Thursday it was "nonsense" to infer from the email any cosy relationship between himself and the figures behind the Wuhan lab research.

"You can misconstrue it however you want," he said, "that email was from a person to me saying 'thank you' for whatever it is he thought I said, and I said that I think the most likely origin is a jumping of species. I still do think it is, at the same time as I'm keeping an open mind that it might be a lab leak."

He added: "The idea I think is quite farfetched that the Chinese deliberately engineered something so that they could kill themselves as well as other people. I think that's a bit far out."

NBC

The recently released emails don’t shed much light on what Fauci was saying privately about the lab leak theory, in part because many of his emails are redacted.

Publicly, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, leaned into the idea that the virus jumped from animals to humans in nature. More recently, he has acknowledged that the evidence is inconclusive and called for more investigation.

One email that has drawn attention went to Fauci on April 18, 2020, from the head of a research group which partners with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Peter Daszak, a zoologist and president of the EcoHealth Alliance, who has been among the most vocal critics of the idea of a lab leak, wrote, “I just wanted to say a personal thank you on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin for COVID-19 from a bat-to-human spillover, not a lab release from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Daszak, who has collaborated with Shi Zhengli and the WIV, was also part of the World Health Organization delegation that spent time in China this year to investigate the origins of pandemic. After the WHO team initially ruled out a lab leak, only to be overruled by the agency chief, critics accused Daszak of having a disqualifying conflict of interest, something he disputes.

“From my perspective, your comments are brave, and coming from your trusted voice, will help dispel the myths being spun around the virus’s origins," Daszak wrote to Fauci.

The next day, Fauci wrote back: “Many thanks for your kind note.”

... so, from the above, the reliable sources are focusing on Daszak writing an email to Fauci, and Fauci replying: "Many thanks for your kind note". I don't think that's very significant. starship.paint (exalt) 04:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those emails with Daszak were special indeed, but the point was to simply establish whether Dr Fauci helped fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology through personally signing off on money given to Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance. From what I understand, this happened.[3] Again, seeing as there is mounting evidence that the virus was engineered to a certain degree at this lab - does this not deserve a mention? The timeline is clear. Dr Fauci pointed out that Covid 19 is unlikely to be bioengineered. He then denied out of hand he had any hand in the funding of the lab in question where the breakout is suspected to have come from. He then admitted funding the lab last week - but only to the tune of $600,000 up until 2019 and stated he trusted that the Chinese scientists were not lead by the CCP or at least that he didn't know if they were (he seems to suggest every possibility most the time). All in all I think wiki readers deserve to hear about this - even if it makes articles like this look pretty insidious: Dr Fauci had nothing to do with the Wuhan Lab - Statesman fact check. Reaper7 (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Reaper7: - firstly, that's not a Statesman fact-check, it's actually a Politifact one. This is usable. Also, that's not a Yahoo News piece, it's actually a National Review piece. National Review - at present, has no consensus at WP:RSP. Now, Reaper7, you earlier claimed Fauci helped fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology through a grant he signed off on to Peter Daszak - and now claim Fauci helped fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology through personally signing off on money given to Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance - and I don't see it being backed up even in the National Review piece, which says that the National Institutes of Health funded the EcoHealth Alliance. It doesn't say Fauci himself signed off on the grant - his organization did, but whether he personally approved it - we don't know. starship.paint (exalt) 02:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I found a WaPo article and wrote the below, along with Politifact. starship.paint (exalt) 03:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition, Republican lawmakers and right-wing commentators accused Fauci of wrongdoing due to the NIAID in 2014 awarding a $3.7 million grant to New York-based research non-profit organization EcoHealth Alliance, which included a $600,000 subgrant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The lawmakers and commentators accused the Wuhan Institute of Virology of performing gain of function research that created COVID-19, however as of June 2021 there was no evidence that the laboratory created COVID-19. The National Institutes of Health, the parent organization of NIAID, stated that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was not allowed to conduct gain of function research under the terms of the grant.[4][5]

starship.paint (exalt) 03:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  • That was discussed before [10]. I think none of that should be included to the page as false and misleading accusations, even though such accusations can be sourced. As NIAID director, Fauci was responsible only for the overall planning, such as this; it does not include specific funding of anything. The funding at the NIH is decided by Study Sections, not by directors of NIH institutes. He had absolutely nothing to do with indirect funding of Wuhan; he just probably knew about it; this is all. These are simply false and manufactured accusations, clearly undue on the page. He did NOT sign off the grant to Daszak.My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://nypost.com/2021/05/25/fauci-admits-nih-funding-of-wuhan-lab-denies-gain-of-function/
  2. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/anthony-fauci-and-the-wuhan-lab-11622759752
  3. ^ https://news.yahoo.com/fauci-defends-u-grants-wuhan-011139007.html
  4. ^ Kim, Noah (February 8, 2021). "No, Dr. Anthony Fauci did not fund research tied to COVID-19 'creation'". Politifact. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
  5. ^ Viser, Matt; Abutaleb, Yasmeen (June 6, 2021). "Trump and his allies try to rewrite, distort history of pandemic while casting Fauci as public enemy No. 1". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 7, 2021. Retrieved June 8, 2021.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2020

Dr. Fauci will receive an honorary degree from Bowdoin College this spring. https://www.bowdoin.edu/news/2020/12/bowdoin-announces-2021-honorary-degree-recipients.html 73.38.158.177 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

We can report it after he gets it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

To add to his list of awards/honors: Dr. Fauci was awarded an honorary Doctor of Science from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute on May 22, 2021. Mbarrett326 (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 15:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 Note: Wait until it is published in a WP:RS. The ceremony has not concluded at the time of making request. Let it conclude. Run n Fly (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Honorary "Doctor of Science" Degrees

Recipient of Honorary doctorate degree, "Doctor of Science", from the University of Miami on May 12, 2012. Source: https://commencement.miami.edu/about-us/archives/honorary-degree-recipients/index.html

As part of the Commencement proceedings of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's 2021 Graduation ceremony on May 22 2021, Anthony Fauci was given an Honorary "Doctor of Science" degree. This should be added to his "Honors" section with his other honorary degrees.

YouTube video/stream of the ceremony can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v1qrtOGP20 Fauci's segment starts roughly 1 hour into the video (the 'official' degree statement happens around 1 hour and 3 minutes in.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

From "In early June 2021, over 3,000 private emails sent by Fauci from January to June 2020 were obtained by media outlets through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests."

To: "In early June 2021, over 3,000 emails sent by Fauci as a federal employee using his government email from January to June 2020 were obtained by media outlets through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests."

Reason: His emails sent doing the transaction of public business. The emails he sent based on looking at a few are clearly ones sent as a federal employee in the conduct of official business. These emails, especially from a high ranking employee, are likely all or nearly all federal records and are not "private" per se, especially when one reads the Freedom of Information Act. Some may contain information protected by the Privacy Act or other federal law. "All agency-administered email accounts are likely to contain Federal records." "[E]mails that are Federal records must be managed for their entire records life cycle. The statutory definition of Federal records is found at 44 U.S.C. 3301 and is further explained in the Code ofFederal Regulations at 36 CFR 1222.10.See https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/m-14-16.pdf.

44 U.S.C. 3301 says a record "includes all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the United States Government or because of the informational value of data in them."

If you need the reference that Dr. Fauci is a federal employee and at "NAID," which appears in the emails next to his name, use https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director

If you need a reference that his agency is subject to FOIA use https://www.niaid.nih.gov/global/freedom-information-act

If you need a reference that his emails are government email, the fact they were requested under FOIA shows this. One can see some of these emails at sites like https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/tony-fauci-emails/ Mark Doehnert (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Undue

So this: "He said that the final case fatality rate of those who are infected will likely be closer to 1% than the 2% initially estimated by the World Health Organization, which is still ten times the 0.1% reported rate for seasonal flu.[15][16][17]". This isn't about him, it's about the crisis. So cool, he was right. But with all of the media attention he has received over this, a short paragraph with what seems like a political motivation seems inappropriate. But I welcome other opinions. (I advocate striking the sentence, and adding more about his life ... don't have time to do it myself now, and would want others to weigh in before touching something this sensitive). Isingness (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is the text as it is now - special:permalink/948061938#COVID-19
I fail to recognize the sensitivity or the politics here. Wikipedia mirrors what reliable sources say. This information is here because this is the information which two of those three cited sources featured as their headline. I have no objection to someone changing anything, but I also am not able to recognize a problem here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Alright then, thank you for your response. I'll wait on if anyone else has an issue. It's a sensitive subject, so want to engage here before making any adjustments to the page. Isingness (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe I added that statement, which he made after some were downplaying the danger by a making a comparison to seasonal flu. His addressing that point does not suggest a political motivation on his part, but rather a medical and scientific judgment by a expert uniquely qualified to make it.
As for whether it is "undue" in its prominence: It is very topical now, and likely will remain so given its import. This article should be expanded to a more comprehensive treatment of his career. I hope to participate in that effort. Kablammo (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Death threats.. why and by whom?

Should the article be more specific? 

   But that style has led to intense criticism and backlash among corners of the conservative internet and some of Trump's supporters. ... Right-wing outlets have posited that Fauci may be trying to undermine the president. Conservative provocateurs such as xxxx have been among those tweeting criticism of Fauci. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/490725-fauci-given-security-detail-after-receiving-threats

  But Fauci has also become a public target for rightwing pundits and bloggers who believe he is undermining the president. An article in the rightwing outlet xxx called Fauci a “Deep-State ­Hillary Clinton-loving stooge”, and referred to a seven-year-old email in which he praised Clinton for her stamina through the Benghazi hearings. xxx, the president of the conservative group xxx, a conservative group; and xxx, host of the far-right online talkshow xxx, have also reinforced Fauci criticisms and conspiracy theories. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/dr-fauci-security-reportedly-expanded-as-infectious-disease-expert-faces-threats

Peter K Burian (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I think more detail would be useful, yes. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

USPHS

I have seen a couple of passing references to Dr Fauci having been a Commissioned Officer of the USPHS, which would not be unusual for an NIH physician, but haven't been able to locate a quality source to verify this. If this can be substantiatedm I think it's worthy of note. Anyone have a reference for this? Irish Melkite (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


Wikidata has reference information, see Anthony Fauci (Q573246). Fauci was a Commissioned Officer of the USPHS, and an NIH Clinical Associate, from 1966 to 1970. See [1] and [2]

References

  1. ^ Gallin, John (October 1, 2007). "2007 Association of American Physicians George M. Kober Medal: Introduction of Anthony S. Fauci, MD". The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 117 (10): 3131–3135. doi:10.1172/JCI33692. PMID 17909634. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
  2. ^ Park, Buhm Soon (2003). "The Development of the Intramural Research Program at the National Institutes of Health after World War II". Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 46 (3): 383–402. doi:10.1353/pbm.2003.0042. Retrieved 19 May 2020.


This really needs to be updated - Dr. Fauci retired as a Rear Admiral (Upper Half) from the USPHS in 1996, serving almost 28 years. His public biographies rarely mention his service, but a little digging into NIH and USPHS sources is helpful. It would be nice to see Dr. Fauci's Flag Officer service highlighted.

Here's a reference regarding his time-in-service, including his retirement in :[1]

Here's a reference announcing his retirement at the rank of Rear Admiral (Upper Half) in August of 1996: [2]

Here's a picture of RADM Fauci with other USPHS senior officers assigned to NIH: [3]

Finally, a direct reference to RADM Fauci in the Commissioned Officers Association from 2005: [4]FightFan2021 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

video about his background

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-L1iEabLNA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Personal details

I’m not sure if this is right, but this article (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york/articles/2020-05-28/for-top-us-virus-experts-faith-and-science-work-together ) seems to suggest that while Fauci has distanced himself from organized religion, he is still a Catholic by belief even as he doesn’t seem to be practicing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.215.46 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

In 1947, a six-year-old Anthony Fauci was a recipient of an emergency smallpox vaccination during the 1947 New York City smallpox outbreak. He described his personal experience on ABC News, offering his story as an exhortation for the potential of what might be done in the current Covid-19 vaccination campaign. Specifically, Fauci said, "New York City in March and April of 1947 vaccinated 6,350,000 people; 5 million of which they did in two weeks. I was a six-year-old boy who was one of those who got vaccinated. So if New York City can do 5 million in two weeks, the United States could do a million a day. We can do it."

I couldn’t figure how this information might fit appropriately into the main body of this article thus I did not insert it, either as text/quote or as a citation. But I wished to include it here, in case another, more experienced editor wishes to fashion an appropriate insertion. (Note I did already insert this info into the article on the 1947 New York City smallpox outbreak). Theophilus Reed (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

despite standing only 5 ft 7 in (1.70 m)

Yeah right, and I'm 6'6... Look at the photos https://static.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/GettyImages-1053069548-H-2020-1605745885-928x523.jpg stefjourdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.167.64.119 (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The quotes used in the Covid-19 section are flat out terrible.

This whole section appears about playing "GOTCHA" with Fauci's quotes.

The second section framed around a couple appearances that politcally motivated Fauci critics highlighted. Even if you tease out the nuances of what was said, many other appearances and statements are ignored. It's still accepted a politically motivated frame.

The third paragraph is straight out garbage. In February 2020, Fauci claimed that the risk COVID-19 poses to the United States is "minuscule".[36]

And it's unsupported by text of the article or video of the interview. "Miniscule" seems to come from the writer of the headline. Furthermore you can use that appearance to say In February 2017, before the first US death from Covid was announced, Dr Fauci warned it "could evolve into a global pandemic," even though "right now, today [the risk to the US] currently is really relatively low."

This is all in Fauci's first answer in the interview. And the first announced death from Covid in the US was the end of February...we know now there were early deaths.

I suggest replacing these paragraphs, with something more accurate. Some that points out in the first months of Covid, Fauci said it was at the moment low risk, but was aware there was a real possiblity of COVID-19 of becoming a global pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.40.129 (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The article mentions that fauci thought the threat of COVID was “just minuscule”. As for the other paragraph, what changes would you suggest making? X-Editor (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The February 2020 quote was bad. He was actually consistent in January and February. Risk low now, but this could change, it was an evolving situation. Fauci has been criticized with the context being left out. I'm going to combine the three interviews because the content is so similar. starship.paint (exalt) 03:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In interviews on January 21, January 26 and February 17, Fauci commented on COVID-19. He said that at the time of the interviews ("right now"), COVID-19 was not a "major threat" to the American public, with the risk to the American public being "low", but this was an "an evolving situation", and "public health officials need to take [COVID-19] very seriously".[5][6] In the latter interview, Fauci said that COVID-19 could become a "global pandemic which would then have significant implications for" the United States.[6]

References

  1. ^ https://history.nih.gov/display/history/Fauci%2C+Anthony+S.+1998
  2. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=VrV0Wow8HeAC&pg=RA7-PA15&lpg=RA7-PA15&dq=admiral+fauci+nih+commissioned+corps&source=bl&ots=KBnCVg260V&sig=ACfU3U3XM7XsWcx_14Jh16ykltiw7mWLzw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjhv9SbiuXwAhUXv54KHfm8B4oQ6AEwCXoECA0QAg#v=onepage&q=admiral%20fauci%20nih%20commissioned%20corps&f=false
  3. ^ https://onih.pastperfectonline.com/photo/ECF21F43-F104-4853-9C46-782705575000
  4. ^ http://susan-blumenthal.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Award__Blumenthal_2009_CoA_Health_Leader_of_the_Year_Color.pdf
  5. ^ Fiske, Warren (2020-04-29). "Did Fauci tell U.S. 'not to worry about' coronavirus?". Politifact. Retrieved 2021-04-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ^ a b Prignano, Christina (July 15, 2020). "Anthony Fauci rebukes Trump administration's efforts to discredit him: 'It's nonsense'". Boston Globe. Archived from the original on July 15, 2020. Retrieved June 4, 2021.

starship.paint (exalt) 04:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Gain of function again

Re [[11]] there is another article: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nih-admits-fauci-lied-about-funding-wuhan-gain-of-function-experiments

I'm not doing anything with it as it's outside my area of expertise. I have never found the Washington Examiner very reliable. deisenbe (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not reliable, and this is clearly labeled as an opinion piece. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Trump irrelevance

This article reads more like it's anti Trump than factual info on Fauci himself. "Targeted by Trump supporters" is more about Trump than Fauci. Kyodragon1 (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Alleged puppy experiments

Should info about alleged puppy experiments funded by Fauci's NIH division be added to this article?[12] X-Editor (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I also found this article that gives some more context.[13] X-Editor (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Not yet. I don't think there's a way to present this info without it being undue. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
No. Here's Politifact's piece on this political attack. The NIAID, however, said one project — out of which came the widely circulated, graphic photo of beagles with their heads in mesh cages — was wrongly listed as receiving funding from the agency. Further, the studies that NIAID did fund, were funded by NIAID, and the director is not sitting on the grant review committees deciding which studies to fund. That's not how NIH grants work. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Seems due to me, as long as had widespread coverage of it. Wikipedia isnt a fan site. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
If the claim that Fauci was involved has been debunked, then how is it relevant to this article? clpo13(talk) 07:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository for conspiracy theories. In mainstream articles, the WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE-compliant thing is to just not mention it at all. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Even a so-called debunking could still be due if it has widespread coverage. I am not aware if this incident has or not, I dont have any position on that at the moment. But simply being controversial is not grounds to censor it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
There isn't widespread coverage. Some outlets ran with Republican criticism of Fauci, it got debunked, coverage stopped. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

'Fauci redirects here'

For whatever reason, Fauci, a surname that others share, redirects here. Of course, the notice saying you've been redirected shows up, but I still thank it's silly a fairly common surname to redirect directly to a singular person. I get others have the same privilege, like Biden, but Biden is much more connected to Joe Biden than Fauci is to Anthony Fauci. Still, his parents named him 'Anthony Stephen Fauci' for a reason. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Advertising / Propaganda

Venting. Firefangledfeathers 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

His wikipedia page reads like propaganda, an advertisement for the self claimed king of science, deserving of immunity (no pun intended) from criticism, let alone prosecution. 2601:40F:500:AAC0:29F5:9067:3A77:9A9E (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

What specific changes would you make, and why? It is not very helpful to make broad pronouncements. Any change would have to reach consensus, and comply with policies and guidelines, but it is worth discussing if you can think of specific examples rather than broad statements like this. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The reality is, that even if they specified, in detail, what changes they would like to see and included reliable sources to back them up then consensus still wouldn't be reached. Wikipedia is, regarding the coverage of certain topics and individuals, less about being encyclopedic and instead is more comparable to being little more than a detailed Fandom-like wiki entry. That is the truth. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
ChonokisFigueroa, saying that consensus won't be reached is quite a way to justify not making any tangible suggestions. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that will result in no change. If you suggest something, we might make changes. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add a quote from Fauci

“You don’t want to go to Hoboken, New Jersey or to Fairfax, Virginia to be studying the bat-human interface that may lead to an outbreak, so you go to China,” Fauci said. 109.252.90.67 (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Where would this belong in the article? And how is it a useful or worthwhile addition? And finally, what secondary independent third party reliable sources have quoted it as relevant to Fauci himself?
These are the things which must be answered before adding quotes to articles like this, especially WP:BLP articles. Thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

ÑÑÑ It's personally relevant to Fauci because the quote is from the same interview in which Fauci says "It was incumbent upon us..." (note the word "us") to study the bat-human interface. Fauci grammatically includes himself to those upon whom it was incumbent. - Joshua Clement Broyles ÑÑÑ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.155.151.234 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation

I don't want to just edit the page because this is a bit of a political issue, and there ARE sources reporting that the NIH admitted funding GOF research in Wuhan, as the 4th paragraph states. But those sources are wrong. The NIH letter doesn't admit anything of the sort, and the experiment in question was done in North Carolina. However, in this article the assertions of the far right media are stated as fact. There should at least be more questionable language there. Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/scicheck-republicans-spin-nih-letter-about-coronavirus-gain-of-function-research/ https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/status/1450934193177903105 https://www.scribd.com/document/508241404/Ralph-Baric-Statement-to-The-Fact-Checker https://www.bbc.com/news/57932699 Tsunami3 (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Video leaves no mistake given the collages about the identity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6plsSlxOstQ

Just saying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.76.29 (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Saying a song is "number one" does not make it so. Shibbolethink, usually I never click Youtube links but I'm glad we both did because we found a 15-year-old non-notable article to nominate for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Always a good feeling to find a clearly non-notable orphan that has just sat around without anybody noticing for years and years! I was afraid to PROD it because I didn't want to get hammered for political bias, so I'm glad you did @Muboshgu :) If it survives a PROD I will happily AFD it if you don't — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Kennedy Book is Out Nov 2021

Hi all -- I note that the Robert F Kennedy book "The Real Anthony Fauci" is now distributed in the USA; I have seen a copy .. casual comment is that there are 2000 or so formal references? and that much of the opening two paragraphs here are directly contested? Shall this article reflect some of that? not "Controversy" section, but the opening paragraphs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.48.113 (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No, RFK Jr. is not credible.[14] See Robert F. Kennedy Jr.#COVID-19 for more. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Of course he is not a credible source, but the book is still #1 bestseller on Amazon, New York TImes, Wall Street Journal and USA Today National. Doesn't that alone make it worth mentioning? The Business Insider blog post you shared misrepresents his statements (intentionally?). This is a good book summary and review for those not keen to read it all themselves. 'Undoubtedly, many will not make it past the title of this review because Kennedy is an “anti-vaxxer” and a “conspiracy theorist.” While both of these have become overused words of dismissal and therefore are non-responses, I do believe “anti-vaccine” should be a legitimate phrase to use for someone opposed to vaccines on principle. I cannot see that as Kennedy's motivation. Rather, I see Kennedy's advocacy for vaccine safety and liability as a natural extension of his longstanding opposition to the capture of regulatory agencies by big industries. [...] As to conspiracy theories, Kennedy has the correct approach to them in his book. That approach is to consider them like any other theory: be open-minded, but skeptical; consider the evidence; judge their plausibility and their likelihood of truth based on that evidence.' Gorgos19 (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Here on wikipedia we are concerned with what the most prevalent reliable sources say. Kennedy Jrs book has no bearing on that question as it is not a reliable source. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Not a reliable source for what? I'd say it's an incredibly reliable source for simply stating the fact that the book exists and that it contains some so far unproven claims criticizing Fauci. Gorgos19 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
What benefit is there for this article if we were to add a sentence like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a book about Fauci that contains unproven claims? That's relevant to RFK Jr, not Fauci. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:DUE: We would need multiple secondary independent sources which say that the RFK book is relevant to Fauci's life enough for inclusion here. And it would need to actually add something substantial. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Archive? Tyrone (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2021

Paragraph 4 jumped out at me: "Nevertheless, it has been confirmed that the NIH under Fauci funded research on corona viruses in Wuhan, China through EcoHealth Alliance. Although Fauci and his defenders maintain the emergence of COVID-19 in 2019 could not have originated in that research, documents verify that the increased transmissibility of those bat viruses to humans was discussed and should have prompted action. This type of research had been banned in the US several years earlier during the Obama administration". The entire paragraph is entirely factually suspect; Fauci never 'headed up' the National Institutes of Health, yet it is implied that he did. Further, the NIH's 'contribution' to the gain of function research in Wuhan is also misrepresented. Someone's trying to not-so-cleverly rewrite history and fact to benefit their highly questionable partisan slant. 47.209.77.19 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done This text was recently added and was clearly not vetted. I have reverted changes made by the most recent editor. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

After an extended conversation with another editor on my page, I am adding better Wiki-approved references (New York Times, Vanity Fair, and The Intercept as well as DHHS) and modified the text to be scrupulously true to those sources, placing it in the timeline (Sept 2021) rather than the introduction. If this doesn't satisfy, I'm done. I am only trying to make the Wiki article factual and current. Seabreezes1 (talk)

Seabreezes1 the edit you made appears to have nothing to do with the subject of this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Twinkle undid my Sept 2021 entry 7 minutes after I posted it, saying it had nothing to do with Fauci. I thought about quoting Fauci in that entry, but felt defensive editors might consider that too heavy handed. The references cover it sufficiently, and the earlier item in the timeline should make it obvious, "In May 2021, Fauci denied that the National Institutes of Health supported "gain-of-function research" at the Wuhan Institute of Virology."
If the protectors of this page want history to stop prior to the release of those NIH documents and emails, I'm not going to engage in a game with them. My entry:
In September 2021, NIH documents accessed through a FOIA request drew increased scrutiny to both the definition of “gain of function” research and the relationship between NIAID and NIH with EcoHealth Alliance. Review of those documents reveal that corona virus research funded by NIH through EcoHealth Alliance on humanized mice increased transmissibility and mortality to an unexpected extent. Scientists agree that the genetically engineered virus described in the report is neither the SARS-CoV-2 virus nor a precursor to the Covid pandemic. Scientists are divided on whether that research meet the definition of “gain-of-function” research, and many scientists have expressed “serious concerns” over the safety and oversight of this research which is authorized by the Department of Health and Human Services through their 2017 “P3CO framework” for research on “enhanced potential pandemic pathogens.”
Lerner, Sharron (September 9 2021). “NIH Documents Provide New Evidence that U.S. Funded Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan.” The Intercept.
Eban, Katherine (October 22, 2021). "In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan". Vanity Fair.
Zimmer, Carl; Mueller, Benjamin (October 21, 2021). “Bat Research Group Failed to Submit Virus Studies Promptly, N.I.H. Says”. The New York Times.
Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens, DHHS 2017
Seabreezes1 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Seabreezes1 I have explained to you extensively on your talk page why this edit is not constructive. Please do not add further edits about this which portray a very specific non-neutral POV. The very inclusion of this material is creating a WP:COATRACK of opinion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I have to concur with Shibbolethink, the edit in question appears to significantly deviate from the scope of the article, as well as demonstrate a POV that appears to imply unproven allegations against a WP:BLP subject, in this case Mr. Fauci himself. Goodposts (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Trump Supporters

Can this be more specific? What does that relay to the reader who has no idea of American politics? It seems like a political smear.

Note: Given the current political climate I feel that I have to say that I am not a “Trump supporter” so that the question may be taken seriously by adults. 97.77.161.202 (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, it'd be fairer to say "Fauci's advice was frequently contradicted by Trump, and Trump's supporters alleged that Fauci was trying to politically undermine Trump's run for reelection". Have edited it accordingly. . . dave souza, talk 19:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV

@Muboshgu: I tried to phrase the paragraph to be as neutral as possible, but since the sources themselves are very biased, it is difficult to be neutral. Feel free to suggest a more neutral paragraph instead. X-Editor (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

X-Editor, when all you add is a Rand Paul attack on Fauci with RCP/WP:FOXNEWS sourcing and there's no context or rebuttal, it's POV by omission. And why is a Rand Paul attack WP:DUE to be added anyway? Fauci is one highly sensitive BLP, you should get consensus before any controversial edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Good points. Thanks for explaining the issue. X-Editor (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Career vs. administration roles

I thought the Janet Yellen page covers her move from the Fed to the Treasury well. Fauci, similarly, went from a more “career”/non-partisan role at NIAID/NIH to basically become a member of both the Trump and Biden administrations. It’s slightly confusing because he seems to still lead NIAID. I think this page should expand on these different roles Fauci has played, or at least remind the reader that he’s served somewhat independently at the NIH as well as directly under very different administrations. It’s a bit more complicated than with Yellen, but perhaps when his statement that he represents “science” causes so much division, it’s important to remind readers that he has served as a “career bureaucrat” at NIH/NIAID, as well as directly in the two very different administrations of Biden and Trump. Contrast that with those who have headed the CDC, and without politically characterizing any recent leaders of that agency, I should be able to say that they quite clearly serve the interests of their administration. A lot of people may have forgotten that not even two years ago, he was serving at the pleasure of the Trump admin. Thanks. 2600:1012:B00F:4F75:747F:9734:24B1:F3A8 (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

He's not in a "partisan role" though. He has been the head of NIAID since 1984. Even as "chief medical officer to the president", this is not partisan, even though there are some who have tried to make it partisan. I do not think he serve the interests of their administration. He's trying to end the pandemic as best he can. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Hello! I'd just like to help out by adding Anthony Fauci's patents to his article in the blank patents section (found near the HIV/AIDS section). The patents found thus so far are:

  • US-9896509-B2
  • US-2003180254-A1
  • US-2009285815-A1
  • US-6190656-B1
  • WO-0042068-A9
  • AU-6234194-A
  • US-5696079-A
  • US-6911527-B1

The source URL is https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Anthony+Fauci&oq=Anthony+Fauci. Feel free to add additional information or correct me, I just thought it would be a waste not to suggest an edit with such a simple answer. Zulujive (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It appears the patent section has been removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Referring to COVID-19 pandemic in the past tense

The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing. Referring to it in the past tense is inaccurate and political. Suggest amending "During the COVID-19 pandemic" at the beginning of pp 3 of the first section to "In 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic." The Personal section also needs to be updated with his rebound after his first course of Paxlovid, comments on his more serious symptoms, and second course of Paxlovid. 207.53.252.145 (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Third paragraph, third sentence. Not factual. “ Some falsely claimed he was involved in creating the virus in a Chinese Laboratory”

This is incorrect. The word “falsely” is not true. To be false, if would have to be proven. It is still unknown where the virus came from. Therefore, the claims are neither false or true, and the world “falsely” should not be included.

If a change isn’t made, it shows bias in Wikipedia—and shows that wikipedia is not factual. 2600:1700:4050:4F00:ED77:7A6D:5E4:7005 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done The theory that COVID-19 was created in a laboratory is not disproven, that much is correct. The idea that Fauci was involved in creating COVID-19 is a conspiracy theory that we will not give any credence to. That idea has been disproven. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

On further reflection, the presentation of that content in the lead, without being in the body, is inappropriate, and the content itself is WP:PROFRINGE. I removed it from the article and am leaving it below. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

PROFRINGE content removed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Some falsely claimed he was involved in creating the virus in a Chinese laboratory.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Alba, Davey; Frenkel, Sheera (March 28, 2020). "Medical Expert Who Corrects Trump Is Now a Target of the Far Right". The New York Times.
  2. ^ Swanson, Ian (July 13, 2020). "White House goes public with attacks on Fauci". The Hill.
  3. ^ "No, Dr. Anthony Fauci did not fund research tied to COVID-19 'creation'". PolitiFact. February 1, 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Fauci/Archive_1&oldid=1164978529"