Talk:Anthony Fauci/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Politico article

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/18/anthony-fauci-interview-covid-00046189 Mapsax (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2022

Add a uniformed officer infobox.

module = infobox uniformed officer

embed = yes

embed_title = Uniformed service

allegiance = United States

branch = U.S. Public Health Service Commissoned Corps

serviceyears = 1969-1996

rank = Rear Admiral

---

Add categories related to the USPHS:

Category:United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps officers

Category:United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps admirals

Category:United States Public Health Service personnel Narthecium (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SWinxy (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Group of Flag Officers in Uniform assigned to the NIH. Dr. Fauci is in the front row, second from the left.

In this interview he discusses his motivation for joining PHS (Vietnam era, PHS most preferred):
Fauci, Anthony S. (March 7, 1989). "Interview with Dr. Anthony S. Fauci". In Their Own Words... NIH Researchers Recall the Early Tears of AIDS (Interview). Interviewed by Victoria A. Harden. National Institues of Health, Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health. Archived from the original on January 9, 2022. Retrieved July 23, 2022.

There are several instances of reference to his rank of Rear Admiral, such as this one:
Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service (COA) (July 11, 2022). "Health Leader of the Year". Facebook. Facebook. Retrieved July 23, 2022.

However, a better reference may be this photo, that shows Dr. Fauci in uniform with the rank of Rear Admiral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narthecium (talk • contribs) 03:48, July 24, 2022 (UTC)

@Narthecium:  Partly done: I was able to find a reliable source regarding his years of service, according to a 1998 interview he retired in 1996 after 27 years of service, so after doing some WP:CALC that came out to 1969–1996. I was unable however to find a reliable source for his rank, and seeing as though we're dealing with WP:BLP, I'm not sure the cited Facebook posts passes that. The provided image convinces me personally, however I think that analysing ourselves from the photo that his rank at the time was a 2 star admiral, might constitute WP:OR even though it is right there. M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is the interview containing the dates:

Fauci, Anthony S. (July 16, 1998). "Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease". Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Oral History 1998 D (Interview). Interviewed by Melissa Klein. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health. Archived from the original on March 8, 2022. Retrieved August 18, 2022. Narthecium (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@M16A3NoRecoilHax: Here's a source for Dr. Fauci's rank of Rear Admiral (Upper) and a more precise retirement date of August 1996.

"Retirements-August", Commisioned Corps Bulletin, x (9), Division of Commissioned Personnel, Program Support Center, DHHS: 15, September 1996 Narthecium (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Narthecium:  Done M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2022

Typo in the year 2219 should be 2019

• 2219: Bertrand Russell Society Award

to

• 2019: Bertrand Russell Society Award Shoepy (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Although Fauci denied gain-of-function research, NIH released evidence to the contrary

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/ Soheagle (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2022

"Add after" the existing line: In May 2021, Fauci denied that the National Institutes of Health supported "gain-of-function research" at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[100]

"Add this:" There are assertions within the scientific community that the definition of "gain-of-function research" was changed by Fauci after accusations were made that he funded such research in Wuhan. Newly released NIH documents suggest, according to experts, that the US funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

Reference: (1) https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21055989/understanding-risk-bat-coronavirus-emergence-grant-notice.pdf (2) https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/ Soheagle (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

New information regarding the vaccine

Date: 12/22

JUST IN - Gov. DeSantis receives approval from the Florida Supreme Court to impanel a grand jury to investigate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers.

Source: https://notabird.site/disclosetv/status/1606031265345327106 ... DiscloseTV is a very reliable source. Even when talking about alien disclosure (lulz), they are far more believable than the rugs y'all prefer to believe like New York Birdcage Liner and Washington Poo.

Fauci's goose is almost cooked.

[redacted libel]

105.160.94.175 (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)WhiteLivesMatterToo

WP:NOTFORUM applies here to most of this statement, so please do not continue this. But an investigation if Fauci is under subpoena certainly would be encyclopedic on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Disclose.tv is fake news, this discussion is pointless. I suggest deleting this section. User:Doug Weller

Need to correct Career section

Fauci’s Career section says he is still the NAID Director and should be corrected to state ghat his last day was Dec. 31, 2022 as the first section does. I cannot correct it because the page is locked. Ekbarber2 (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Corrected. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat misleading paragraph.

The paragraph that claims is somewhat misleading. “Due to Trump's opposition to CDC mask wearing guidelines and social distancing measures, which Fauci advocated, Fauci was criticized by right-wing pundits and received death threats that necessitated a security detail”.

1. Trump embraced people wearing masks according to CDC guidlines. He opposed mandating that everyone wear masks. 2. Trump supported and extended the social distancing guidlines multiple times.

To claim Trump opposed social distancing is a lie. To claim he opposed CDC mask guidelines is a lie. He only imposed making it mandated.

https://www.voanews.com/a/covid-19-pandemic_trump-embraces-face-masks-rejects-national-mandate/6193061.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/29/politics/trump-coronavirus-press-conference/index.html WhowinsIwins (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I've taken out "Due to Trump's opposition to CDC mask wearing guidelines and social distancing measures, which Fauci advocated", as it's not supported by the sources inline. We should though say something there about why there was a rise in threats. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023 interview

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/24/magazine/dr-fauci-pandemic.html Anything useful? Mapsax (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Georgetown University

Dr. Anthony Fauci To Join Georgetown Faculty as Distinguished University Professor (secondary sources also available) Best place(s) in the article for this? I almost put an "update" note at the top of the article but figured this was better. Mapsax (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

New Photograph

I've just made a series of portraits of Dr Fauci at his home. I think this one would be a good update to the current photograph.

Anthony Fauci in 2023 01

Cmichel67 (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed image 2

I've seen your new portrait photographs of Fauci and I'm impressed. However the proposed image's lighting is a bit too dark. I like this one better, it looks like an official portrait, the lighting is good and its a recent image. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree, the dark photo looks WP:PROMO as well, like its trying to make him a model. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Controversy

It looks like the page is missing a “Controversy” section 49.194.43.101 (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

No, controversy sections are deprecated in biographies as defamation magnets. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Acroterion if this is true, then I suggest you may have a lot of work to do, removing controversies sections from living people articles. They are all over the place. Can we have either some fairness or if we can’t have that, at least an acknowledgement of bias? 107.77.203.110 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We do have a lot of work to do. It would be helpful to address the removal of WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONs on the pages that have them. They violate WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful reply. 107.77.203.110 (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Muboshguare you saying here that these are not allowed any more and there’s an objective standard whereby they are being systematically removed? Or is it a convoluted series of rules that lends itself to bias/suggestions of bias? 107.77.203.110 (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Or put another way, you appear to be complaining about a problem that doesn't exist here. Go fix it where it exists. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Well good thing things aren’t always what they appear to you. There really is a problem. 107.77.203.110 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Feel free to add the content inline into the sections. The policy only means that we dont create whole controversy sections normally, but you could name the section something more specific as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation

In articles concerning people like Steve Kirsch and Joseph Lapado the word "misinformation" with respect to COVID/vaccines comes up very frequently. Conservatives often argue that Wikipedia is biased, but I think this is a great opportunity to show that Wikipedia remains neutral. We need to make it clear that Anthony Fauci is a regular purveyor of COVID/vaccine misinformation.

- He said the vaccine is safe & effective. In fact, the recent NIH study showed that there are 2-7x increases in blood and heart conditions depending on the vaccine taken.

- He said vaccinated people become dead ends, i.e. they cannot spread COVID. This has also been shown to be misinformation.

There is no doubt Fauci's heart was in the right place, and ultimately I do believe the vaccine is a miracle of mankind. But he needs to be called out as a purveyor of misinformation, just like the anti-vaccine crowd regularly is. 2601:47:4783:1320:41D6:8E37:9F54:50B6 (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(1) The vaccine is safe and effective. You are misreading the conclusions of that NIH study. "The study does not suggest that the vaccines are the cause of the increases, and scientists say more research is needed to determine what causes this increased risk."

(2) Fauci did not say vaccinated people cannot spread COVID. See the transcript of his "dead end" remark. DR. FAUCI: And you know, JOHN, you said it very well. I could have said it better. It's absolutely the case. And that's the reason why we say when you get vaccinated, you not only protect your own health, that of the family, but also you contribute to the community health by preventing the spread of the virus throughout the community. And in other words, you become a dead end to the virus. And when there are a lot of dead ends around, the virus is not going to go anywhere. And that's when you get a point that you have a markedly diminished rate of infection in the community. And that's exactly the reason, and you said it very well, of why we encourage people and want people to get vaccinated. The more people you get vaccinated, the safer the entire community is. He said the more vaccinated the community is, the less COVID will spread. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

1. I did not misread the conclusions of the NIH study. The numbers are accurate. In fact, the headline from the very article you sent me agrees: "A new study confirmed a slightly increased risk of several conditions following COVID-19 vaccination." In fact, I would argue THAT is a misreading of the NIH study, which does indeed show that the vaccine multiplies the chances for several health issues. However, since some of those health issues only occurred 1 in 100K people, showing that the vaccine created issues for 2 or 3 in 100K people is called a "slightly increased risk". It is not slight on a percentage basis.

2. The implication of a "dead end" is that the person cannot spread it. Thus, the community (some of which is unvaccinated) will have a significantly lower rate of infection. I don't see what part of that lengthy quote shows he believed vaccinated people could still spread it. 2601:47:4783:1320:4DAD:7736:1409:3B19 (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

(1) Rare increases that they do not conclude are the result of the vaccine do not demonstrate that the vaccine is unsafe.

(2) Never did he say that vaccinated people cannot spread it, as far as I am aware. He said that the more people are vaccinated, the less it will spread. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The OP's premise is a BLP violation. I've removed it once before. Since it was restored and replied to, I'll leave it here for now. The OP is warned for defamation, however carefully couched. Read the 3 CT notices at the top of this talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not take it as one, because the IP editor seems to suggest that it was not deliberate on Fauci's part. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am less optimistic, since it appears to be an attempt at broadly labeling Fauci as misinforming on the basis of isolated incidents. Acroterion (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Usually I'm the editor who takes a stricter view of these sort of comments. Interesting. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:RS, then WP:OR and especially WP:SYNTH. We have reliable sources saying that Kirsch and Ladapo are spreading misinformation. We do not have such sources about Fauci, we only have your conclusions. People have refuted those conclusions, but that is not necessary for the purpose of this page. We cannot use your conclusions in any case. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)