Politifact COVID Fact Checker - ZERO medical experience

[Darth Executor]

Forbes - Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Golden Parachute Will Exceed $350,000 Per Year – The Largest In U.S. Federal Government History

That's it? Rookie money. No wonder he's been in his position this long, no scientist or doctor on his level would work for peanuts like that.

[Cow Poke]

That's it? Rookie money. No wonder he's been in his position this long, no scientist or doctor on his level would work for peanuts like that.

That's not work. That's retirement. The Largest In U.S. Federal Government History.

[Darth Executor]

That's not work. That's retirement. The Largest In U.S. Federal Government History.

I know, I'm talking about Patents and stocks (+ investments from much larger salaries).

Whether it's the largest in US federal government history is not really material. If the government wants good scientists, it's gonna have to give them competitive pay (and retirement). Given the endless complaints about Fauci, you should hope the next one is paid even better.

[rogue06]

That's it? Rookie money. No wonder he's been in his position this long, no scientist or doctor on his level would work for peanuts like that.

You seem to be laboring under the odd misconception that scientists are multi-millionaires rolling around in piles of cash.

Even at a high level those that are rich are usually so because they started up a company that could make them rich. That takes an entirely different set of skills than just being a really good scientist or doctor.

[Mountain Man]

I know, I'm talking about Patents and stocks (+ investments from much larger salaries).

Whether it's the largest in US federal government history is not really material. If the government wants good scientists, it's gonna have to give them competitive pay (and retirement). Given the endless complaints about Fauci, you should hope the next one is paid even better.

That's just his government salary. He has made millions more from Big Phrama kickbacks.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...rug-companies/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamand...h=66b72ce07d5f

[Stoic]

Most pharmaceutical and healthcare company executives have extensive business and finance training or have spent their lives in business, not in scientific research. Nice fail tho.

I'm thinking Fauci could've had one of these jobs.

[Stoic]

That's just his government salary. He has made millions more from Big Phrama kickbacks.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...rug-companies/

"But Collins and Fauci, as far as I know, were administrators, not researchers."

Dr. Fauci also is the longtime chief of the Laboratory of Immunoregulation. He has made many contributions to basic and clinical research on the pathogenesis and treatment of immune-mediated and infectious diseases. He helped pioneer the field of human immunoregulation by making important basic scientific observations that underpin the current understanding of the regulation of the human immune response. In addition, Dr. Fauci is widely recognized for delineating the precise ways that immunosuppressive agents modulate the human immune response. He developed effective therapies for formerly fatal inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases such as polyarteritis nodosa, granulomatosis with polyangiitis (formerly Wegener's granulomatosis), and lymphomatoid granulomatosis. A 1985 Stanford University Arthritis Center Survey of the American Rheumatism Association membership ranked Dr. Fauci’s work on the treatment of polyarteritis nodosa and granulomatosis with polyangiitis among the most important advances in patient management in rheumatology over the previous 20 years.

Dr. Fauci has made seminal contributions to the understanding of how HIV destroys the body's defenses leading to its susceptibility to deadly infections. Further, he has been instrumental in developing treatments that enable people with HIV to live long and active lives. He continues to devote much of his research to the immunopathogenic mechanisms of HIV infection and the scope of the body's immune responses to HIV.

source

There's more, but you get the idea. Your source is an idiot.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamand...h=66b72ce07d5f

Yes, Fauci has a lot of money. Not as much as he would have made in the private sector, but a lot.

[Darth Executor]

You seem to be laboring under the odd misconception that scientists are multi-millionaires rolling around in piles of cash.

By fauci's age most have made enough money that if they just follow a boring investment strategy they should be multi-millionaires. Someone more driven & at the top of his field like Fauci should easily hit 10s of millions in net worth.

Even at a high level those that are rich are usually so because they started up a company that could make them rich. That takes an entirely different set of skills than just being a really good scientist or doctor.

That's the best way if you want to hit 9-10 figures, but you can hit 7-8 figures without your own company.

[Mountain Man]

"But Collins and Fauci, as far as I know, were administrators, not researchers."

Dr. Fauci also is the longtime chief of the Laboratory of Immunoregulation. He has made many contributions to basic and clinical research on the pathogenesis and treatment of immune-mediated and infectious diseases. He helped pioneer the field of human immunoregulation by making important basic scientific observations that underpin the current understanding of the regulation of the human immune response. In addition, Dr. Fauci is widely recognized for delineating the precise ways that immunosuppressive agents modulate the human immune response. He developed effective therapies for formerly fatal inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases such as polyarteritis nodosa, granulomatosis with polyangiitis (formerly Wegener's granulomatosis), and lymphomatoid granulomatosis. A 1985 Stanford University Arthritis Center Survey of the American Rheumatism Association membership ranked Dr. Fauci’s work on the treatment of polyarteritis nodosa and granulomatosis with polyangiitis among the most important advances in patient management in rheumatology over the previous 20 years.

Dr. Fauci has made seminal contributions to the understanding of how HIV destroys the body's defenses leading to its susceptibility to deadly infections. Further, he has been instrumental in developing treatments that enable people with HIV to live long and active lives. He continues to devote much of his research to the immunopathogenic mechanisms of HIV infection and the scope of the body's immune responses to HIV.

source

There's more, but you get the idea. Your source is an idiot.



Yes, Fauci has a lot of money. Not as much as he would have made in the private sector, but a lot.

I have no idea what your source has to do with my source which pegged Fauci the Fraud as having clear conflicts of interest in the fact that as director of the NIH, he could and did direct research grants so as to personally benefit himself financially in the form of royalties and kickbacks:

According to information garnered from Freedom of Information Act Requests, between 2009-2014, both Anthony Fauci and former NIH director Francis Collins received royalty payments from pharmaceutical companies. This may present a conflict of interest since they had a great deal of influence in deciding what research the government funds...

https://www.nationalreview.com/corne...rug-companies/

I would also be very careful if I were you to mention any involvement he had with HIV and AIDS research since his contributions were, shall we, a tad controversial:

Had Fauci listened to people with AIDS and the clinicians treating them, and responded accordingly, he would have saved thousands of lives. In the two years between 1987, when Callen met with Fauci and 1989, when the guidelines were ultimately issued, nearly 17,000 people with AIDS suffocated from PCP. Most of these people might have lived had Fauci responded appropriately.

[...]

When Callen and others, including Dr. Barry Gingell, a medical advisor to Gay Men's Health Crisis, met with Fauci to plead for his support, they didn't just say there was "this preliminary activity and some small trials," as Fauci claims. They explained that many frontline AIDS physicians, following the lead of Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, were already using Bactrim effectively to prevent the recurrence of PCP. The science was clear. A decade before, clinical trials by Dr. Walter Hughes had proven its efficacy in preventing PCP in other immune-compromised populations, like children with leukemia.

Hughes suggested that Bactrim prophylaxis should be used whenever the recurrence rate of PCP was over 15 percent. Sonnabend and community clinicians had demonstrated that the recurrence rate of PCP in AIDS was over 60 percent in the year following the first episode. If ever there was a group in urgent need of a recommendation for Bactrim prophylaxis, it was people with AIDS.

Fauci refused to acknowledge the evidence and, according to one account, even encouraged people with AIDS to stop taking treatments, like Bactrim, that weren't specifically approved for use in people with AIDS. Longtime treatment activist Richard Jefferys wrote in 2001 that Fauci "went as far as telling activists attending a 1987 meeting that there was no data to suggest PCP prophylaxis was beneficial and that it may, in fact be dangerous." Fauci's close colleague, Dr. Samuel Broder, who was head of the National Cancer Institute, even suggested -- in the absence of any evidence at all -- that the newly introduced antiretroviral, AZT, would make prophylaxis against PCP redundant!

In his comment to the Blade, Fauci fails to mention how skeptical he was of Bactrim as a preventive treatment, that he questioned the existing science, was unswayed by how frontline clinicians were treating people with AIDS and had suggested stopping a treatment that was already saving lives.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/white...tory_b_4762295

Sounds very similar to his response to the fact that certain inexpensive and readily available (and patent free!) medications were being used to successfully treat the China flu, and then taking steps to ban those medications in favor of the vaccines from which he was benefiting financially.

There's also the fact that he approved of testing AIDS drugs on foster children which "exposed a vulnerable population to the risks of medical research and drugs that were known to have serious side effects in adults and for which the safety for children was unknown."

https://www.denverpost.com/2005/05/0...d-in-research/

Finally, you say that Fauci the Fraud could have made more money in private sector, but that's certainly not a given. He's getting rich enough in his present position with his top dollar government salary and generous kickbacks from the likes of Pfizer and Moderna, plus he has the fame and influence that he would never have if he was some faceless corporate cog like a vice president or chairman of the board. For that matter, not even company presidents have Fauci the Fraud's high profile notoriety. Case in point, I bet you can't tell me the name of the Johnson & Johnson company president without looking it up.

[Stoic]

Fauci the Fraud is the highest paid government employee in US history, and he is raking in mountains of cash from patents used in the China flu vaccines which he is uniquely positioned to force onto the public (can you say "conflict of interest"?).

Do you have a (non-idiotic) source that shows Fauci has any patents used in the covid-19 vaccines?

That's in addition to any "gifts" he might be receiving from the pharmaceutical industry.

Do you have any reason to believe Fauci has received any "gifts" from the pharmaceutical industry? (Other than an irrational hatred of Fauci?)

Then there's the fame (or perhaps infamy) he enjoys as a high profile public figure, something he would surely not have in the private sector.

Granted, he is probably better known than he would be in the private sector.

Bottom line, he has zero incentive to seek riches and fame outside of his cushy government position.

Not now, he doesn't. But if he were seeking riches, he could have done a much better job of it in the private sector (or academia).

[Stoic]

I have no idea what your source has to do with my source which pegged Fauci the Fraud as having clear conflicts of interest in the fact that as director of the NIH, he could and did direct research grants so as to personally benefit himself financially in the form of royalties and kickbacks:

Your own source admitted: "When bench scientists’ research leads to monetized benefit in the private sector, I suppose royalties are in order."

Since they receive those royalties regardless of what their administrative decisions might be, they aren't a conflict of interest.

I would also be very careful if I were you to mention any involvement he had with HIV and AIDS research since his contributions were, shall we, a tad controversial:

Had Fauci listened to people with AIDS and the clinicians treating them, and responded accordingly, he would have saved thousands of lives. In the two years between 1987, when Callen met with Fauci and 1989, when the guidelines were ultimately issued, nearly 17,000 people with AIDS suffocated from PCP. Most of these people might have lived had Fauci responded appropriately.

[...]

When Callen and others, including Dr. Barry Gingell, a medical advisor to Gay Men's Health Crisis, met with Fauci to plead for his support, they didn't just say there was "this preliminary activity and some small trials," as Fauci claims. They explained that many frontline AIDS physicians, following the lead of Dr. Joseph Sonnabend, were already using Bactrim effectively to prevent the recurrence of PCP. The science was clear. A decade before, clinical trials by Dr. Walter Hughes had proven its efficacy in preventing PCP in other immune-compromised populations, like children with leukemia.

Hughes suggested that Bactrim prophylaxis should be used whenever the recurrence rate of PCP was over 15 percent. Sonnabend and community clinicians had demonstrated that the recurrence rate of PCP in AIDS was over 60 percent in the year following the first episode. If ever there was a group in urgent need of a recommendation for Bactrim prophylaxis, it was people with AIDS.

Fauci refused to acknowledge the evidence and, according to one account, even encouraged people with AIDS to stop taking treatments, like Bactrim, that weren't specifically approved for use in people with AIDS. Longtime treatment activist Richard Jefferys wrote in 2001 that Fauci "went as far as telling activists attending a 1987 meeting that there was no data to suggest PCP prophylaxis was beneficial and that it may, in fact be dangerous." Fauci's close colleague, Dr. Samuel Broder, who was head of the National Cancer Institute, even suggested -- in the absence of any evidence at all -- that the newly introduced antiretroviral, AZT, would make prophylaxis against PCP redundant!

In his comment to the Blade, Fauci fails to mention how skeptical he was of Bactrim as a preventive treatment, that he questioned the existing science, was unswayed by how frontline clinicians were treating people with AIDS and had suggested stopping a treatment that was already saving lives.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/white...tory_b_4762295

Sounds very similar to his response to the fact that certain inexpensive and readily available (and patent free!) medications were being used to successfully treat the China flu, and then taking steps to ban those medications in favor of the vaccines from which he was benefiting financially.

Yes, every single time the government decides there is enough data available to support the recommendation of a specific treatment, it can be argued that it would have been better if they had only recommended it earlier (whether Fauci is involved or not).

And sometimes when the government decides not to recommend a treatment because of lack of data, it's a good thing they didn't. (see thalidomide)

And you still haven't shown that Fauci benefited financially from the vaccines.

There's also the fact that he approved of testing AIDS drugs on foster children which "exposed a vulnerable population to the risks of medical research and drugs that were known to have serious side effects in adults and for which the safety for children was unknown."

https://www.denverpost.com/2005/05/0...d-in-research/

Your source doesn't mention Fauci.

Finally, you say that Fauci the Fraud could have made more money in private sector, but that's certainly not a given. He's getting rich enough in his present position with his top dollar government salary and generous kickbacks from the likes of Pfizer and Moderna, plus he has the fame and influence that he would never have if he was some faceless corporate cog like a vice president or chairman of the board. For that matter, not even company presidents have Fauci the Fraud's high profile notoriety. Case in point, I bet you can't tell me the name of the Johnson & Johnson company president without looking it up.

I've already granted that Fauci is probably better known than he would be in the private sector.

[Mountain Man]

Your own source admitted: "When bench scientists’ research leads to monetized benefit in the private sector, I suppose royalties are in order."

Since they receive those royalties regardless of what their administrative decisions might be, they aren't a conflict of interest.


Yes, every single time the government decides there is enough data available to support the recommendation of a specific treatment, it can be argued that it would have been better if they had only recommended it earlier (whether Fauci is involved or not).

And sometimes when the government decides not to recommend a treatment because of lack of data, it's a good thing they didn't. (see thalidomide)

And you still haven't shown that Fauci benefited financially from the vaccines.


Your source doesn't mention Fauci.


I've already granted that Fauci is probably better known than he would be in the private sector.

You say, "Since they receive those royalties regardless of what their administrative decisions might be, they aren't a conflict of interest." Except in Fauci the Fraud's case, he was in a government position where he could and did direct funds and grants in a way that was most financially beneficial to himself. One can only wonder how many researchers were denied government funding because it wouldn't have put money into Fauci the Fraud's pockets.

As for your rejoinder that one of my sources didn't mention Fauci, it does mention the NIH. Now, who was the director of the NIH at the time, genius?

Also, I did provide a source showing how Fauci the Fraud financially benefited from the vaccines, but you dismissed with a characteristic wave of the hand.

[Stoic]

You say, "Since they receive those royalties regardless of what their administrative decisions might be, they aren't a conflict of interest." Except in Fauci the Fraud's case, he was in a government position where he could and did direct funds and grants in a way that was most financially beneficial to himself.

"Could", maybe. "Did" requires some evidence.

One can only wonder how many researchers were denied government funding because it wouldn't have put money into Fauci the Fraud's pockets.

Yeah, I wonder if it was more than zero.

As for your rejoinder that one of my sources didn't mention Fauci, it does mention the NIH. Now, who was the director of the NIH at the time, genius?

There were a number of them over the time period in question. None of them was Fauci, though. He was busy directing the NIAID.

Also, I did provide a source showing how Fauci the Fraud financially benefited from the vaccines, but you dismissed with a characteristic wave of the hand.

You've provided a lot of sources. Which one was that?

[Cow Poke]

I know, I'm talking about Patents and stocks (+ investments from much larger salaries).

Whether it's the largest in US federal government history is not really material. If the government wants good scientists, it's gonna have to give them competitive pay (and retirement). Given the endless complaints about Fauci, you should hope the next one is paid even better.

So, everybody else the government hires is poopoo? There's a reason they call government jobs "public service".

[Sparko]

Well at least they canned the "Disinformation Board" headed by the Mary Poppins wannabe.