Talk:Anthony Fauci

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

Controversy[edit]

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

No, controversy sections are deprecated in biographies as defamation magnets. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful reply. 107.77.203.110 (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Misinformation[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2024[edit]

Add Daily Wire expose concerning Anthony Fauci from 1980-2024. 72.84.70.156 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There is a strong consensus that The Daily Wire is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Detractors note the site's tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or are improperly verified. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_Fauci&oldid=1215263903"