ReportWire

Tag: Anthony Fauci

  • U of M postpones lecture by Dr. Anthony Fauci amid campus unrest

    U of M postpones lecture by Dr. Anthony Fauci amid campus unrest

    12 buildings shut down, speaker postponed due to protest at U of M


    12 buildings shut down, speaker postponed due to protest at U of M

    01:51

    MINNEAPOLIS — The University of Minnesota postponed a lecture by Dr. Anthony Fauci Tuesday evening due to the unrest on campus.

    Fauci was scheduled to speak at Northrop at 6 p.m. Earlier in the day, some students gathered in support of the 11 pro-Palestinian protesters arrested on campus on Monday.

    “The University of Minnesota made the difficult decision to reschedule yesterday night’s Distinguished Carlson Lecture featuring Dr. Anthony Fauci,” the school said in a statement. “Given the importance of this lecture and the unexpected and complicated incidents that occurred on campus in the preceding 24 hours, University officials determined it best to reschedule to ensure a great experience for attendees and our University community.”

    The school said all tickets will be voided and information about the rescheduled event will be shared later. 

    A group of protesters demanding the university’s divestment from companies that support Israel entered Morrill Hall on Monday afternoon. They barricaded the building’s entrances and exits, officials said. Authorities entered the building through underground tunnels and arrested 11 students and alumni.

    As of Wednesday morning, no charges have been filed against the 11 arrested, who range in age from 18 to 26.

    Monday’s protest was organized by the group UMN Students for a Democratic Society, which is calling on the university to divest from companies that support Israel. The Board of Regents declined to do so in August following weeks of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus.  

    Fauci was the public face of the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic under presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden. He retired in 2022 after a 50-year career in medicine.

    Anthony Bettin

    Source link

  • Dr. Anthony Fauci recovering after hospitalization for West Nile virus

    Dr. Anthony Fauci recovering after hospitalization for West Nile virus

    Dr. Anthony Fauci recovering after hospitalization for West Nile virus

    Fauci, a longtime public health official who became a household name as part of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, is expected to recover fully, a spokesperson said

    Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is recovering at home after being hospitalized with West Nile virus, a spokesperson said.Related video above: Dr. Fauci testifies to House panel about COVID (6/03/24)Fauci, a longtime public health official who became a household name as part of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, is expected to recover fully, the spokesperson said.About 1,000 Americans are hospitalized each year with the most severe form of West Nile virus, which is spread through the bite of infected mosquitoes. Another 1,500, on average, are diagnosed after developing symptoms, although experts estimate that as many as 80% of infections in the U.S. are never identified.There is no vaccine or specific treatment for West Nile. Most cases are mild, causing flu-like symptoms and a rash. In about 1 in 150 cases, the virus invades the brain and nervous system, which can lead to brain swelling, brain damage or death. About 100 people die from West Nile infections in the U.S. each year.The heaviest virus activity is usually seen in August and September. As of Aug. 20, 216 cases have been reported this year in 33 states, with 142 neuroinvasive cases, according to preliminary data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.CNN’s Brenda Goodman contributed to this report.

    Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is recovering at home after being hospitalized with West Nile virus, a spokesperson said.

    Related video above: Dr. Fauci testifies to House panel about COVID (6/03/24)

    Fauci, a longtime public health official who became a household name as part of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, is expected to recover fully, the spokesperson said.

    About 1,000 Americans are hospitalized each year with the most severe form of West Nile virus, which is spread through the bite of infected mosquitoes. Another 1,500, on average, are diagnosed after developing symptoms, although experts estimate that as many as 80% of infections in the U.S. are never identified.

    There is no vaccine or specific treatment for West Nile. Most cases are mild, causing flu-like symptoms and a rash. In about 1 in 150 cases, the virus invades the brain and nervous system, which can lead to brain swelling, brain damage or death. About 100 people die from West Nile infections in the U.S. each year.

    The heaviest virus activity is usually seen in August and September. As of Aug. 20, 216 cases have been reported this year in 33 states, with 142 neuroinvasive cases, according to preliminary data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    CNN’s Brenda Goodman contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Fauci recovering from West Nile Virus

    Fauci recovering from West Nile Virus

    Fauci recovering from West Nile Virus – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is recovering from a bout of West Nile Virus. The 83-year-old Fauci was hospitalized for several days, but is now at home.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • Should Donald Trump have been convicted?

    Should Donald Trump have been convicted?

    In this week’s The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Peter Suderman debrief in the wake of former President Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records last week in New York City.

    00:33—Donald Trump’s conviction

    27:37—Weekly Listener Question

    42:11—Recent undercovered stories

    50:48—This week’s cultural recommendations

    Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

    Mentioned in this podcast:

    Does Donald Trump’s Conviction in New York Make Us Banana Republicans?” by J.D. Tuccille

    Trump’s Conviction Requires Him To Surrender His Guns. Civil Libertarians Should Be Troubled.” by Jacob Sullum

    The Prosecution’s Story About Trump Featured Several Logically Impossible Claims,” by Jacob Sullum

    First Felon,” by Liz Wolfe

    Trump’s Conviction Suggests Jurors Bought the Prosecution’s Dubious ‘Election Fraud’ Narrative,” by Jacob Sullum

    Trump Jury Instructions Invite Conviction Based on a Hodgepodge of Dubious Theories,” by Jacob Sullum

    Prosecutors Say Trump Tried To ‘Hoodwink the American Voter,’ Which Is Not a Crime,” by Jacob Sullum

    The Felon,” by Matt Labash

    Chase Oliver: What Does the Libertarian Presidential Candidate Really Believe?” by Zach Weissmueller and Liz Wolfe

    Chase Oliver Is the Libertarian Party’s Presidential Pick,” by Eric Boehm

    $7.5 Billion in Government Cash Only Built 8 E.V. Chargers in 2.5 Years,” by Joe Lancaster

    Biden’s Tariffs Are a Bad Idea,” by Eric Boehm

    Fauci to Congress: 6-Foot Social Distancing Guidance Likely Not Based on Data,” by Christian Britschgi

    ’15 Days To Slow the Spread’: On the Fourth Anniversary, a Reminder to Never Give Politicians That Power Again,” by John Stossel

    The CDC Made America’s Pandemic Worse,” by Peter Suderman

    The CDC’s Guidance for Summer Camps Is Insane,” by Robby Soave

    CDC’s New ‘Reopening’ Guidance Will Keep Schools Closed in the Fall,” by Matt Welch

    What Ken Burns’ New Film Gets Right—and Wrong—About the Roosevelts,” by Damon Root

    Upcoming Reason Events:

    Today’s sponsor:

    • Hello, liberty lovers! Are you passionate about preserving civil liberties and individual freedom? Do you want to support organizations that uphold these principles but struggle to navigate the complex world of charitable giving? Well, fear not! We have the perfect solution for you: a giving account with DonorsTrust. A giving account, also known as a donor-advised fund, is a simple, secure, and tax-advantaged way for libertarian givers like you to support the causes you care about most. With a donor-advised fund, you can make a contribution, receive an immediate tax deduction, and then recommend grants to your favorite charities over time. Plus, you retain control over how your charitable dollars are invested, ensuring they align with your values and goals. Whether you’re passionate about defending free speech, protecting property rights, or promoting limited government, a donor-advised fund with DonorsTrust empowers you to make a meaningful impact. So, join us in preserving liberty for future generations by opening a donor-advised fund at DonorsTrust today. To learn more and get started, visit our sponsor, DonorsTrust, at www.donorstrust.org/roundtable. Take control of your giving and make a difference in the fight for freedom. That’s www.donorstrust.org/roundtable. Remember, every dollar counts in the battle to safeguard our civil liberties. Let’s make our voices heard together!

    Audio production by Ian Keyser; assistant production by Hunt Beaty.

    Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve


    Matt Welch

    Source link

  • Man setting himself ablaze in NYC is a scary reflection of our new extremist politics | Opinion

    Man setting himself ablaze in NYC is a scary reflection of our new extremist politics | Opinion

    OPINION AND COMMENTARY

    Editorials and other Opinion content offer perspectives on issues important to our community and are independent from the work of our newsroom reporters.

    Max Azzarello

    Max Azzarello’s views include paranoid fantasies about both Trump and President Joe Biden.

    Screengrab from Instagram

    There’s a paranoid sickness that unites far-left and far-right in the United States. Its latest victim, identified by city officials as Florida resident Max Azzarello, set himself ablaze in the pro-Donald Trump protest area outside the Manhattan courtroom where the former president is on trial.

    Azzarello’s views include paranoid fantasies about both Trump and President Joe Biden. They’re both “in on it” he told reporters outside the trial while carrying a sign that said “Trump is with Biden and they’re about to fascist coup us” in all caps.

    Before he “stood tall” and poured gasoline on himself as he lit a flame, according to The New York Times, Azzarello tossed leaflets full of bipartisan conspiracy theories while onlookers screamed and ran. Such actions mark him as an outlier in American politics — someone willing to die for his beliefs, but the crazy adherence to bipartisan conspiracies are far from fringe.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a third-party candidate for president, peddles conspiracy theories about vaccines, yet has polled at more than 20% support as recently as last fall. In some swing states his support, drawn from blue and red partisans alike, is enough to push the race to Trump or Biden.

    Moreover, the vaccine paranoia once at home on the granola-crunching, Birkenstock-wearing flaky left has spread throughout the Trumpy right with enough adherents to spark outbreaks of diseases once thought defeated.

    Avuncular doctor Anthony Fauci is the focus of many conspiracies that track American funding to a Wuhan lab from which the COVID-19 virus escaped leading to a pandemic that killed millions. Supposedly, the motive was imposing a new level of government control on society.

    The idea that our government would kill millions to advance its goals has surprising adherents. Last week, New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers claimed that AIDS was a government plot from the 1980s. He’s not the first to say that, but he may be the most prominent.

    And you don’t have to be a freak or a jerk to get sucked into this national sickness. Rep. Paul Gosar was once a beloved dentist before going to Congress and then descending into paranoia while being reelected despite his irrational views.

    Democrats and Republicans both have partisan media ecosystems that feature frequent stories about the other that which put them in the worst imaginable light: Democrats are advancing Marxism. Republicans want to throw working-class wheelchair-bound grandmothers off a cliff.

    Each party features a brand of politicians who cater to this angry and reality-challenged view while profiting from the gushers of fundraising it drives. On the left, we have The Squad and on the right the Freedom Caucus. Each party features leaders who sometimes bow to the pressures from these fringes, giving them the power and credibility to bring in new adherents.

    Those who have a hopeful, sometimes naive view of the United States work to unite Americans around a commonsense middle where we all come together to get things done, but those centrist bonds have frayed and the politicians who seek to build them have become rarer and rarer, still.

    What unites America is a loony left and an angry paranoid right whose most extreme elements blend into one another seamlessly.

    Max Azzarello isn’t a fringe player. He’s a blazing warning that the new center of American politics — a bipartisan sickness of the extremes — could consume us all.

    David Mastio, a former editor and columnist for USA Today, is a regional editor for The Center Square and a regular Kansas City Star Opinion correspondent. Follow him on X: @DavidMastio or email him at dmastio1@yahoo.com

    David Mastio

    Source link

  • Feds, Scientists Take Fire for Allegedly Hiding COVID Origins Truth

    Feds, Scientists Take Fire for Allegedly Hiding COVID Origins Truth

    Cmichel67, CC BY-SA 4.0

    By Casey Harper (The Center Square)

    A Republican-led Congressional committee says a scientist and top advisor to Anthony Fauci used his personal email to hide evidence related to the origins of COVID-19.

    Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, sent a letter to the National Emerging Infectious Disease Institute asking for more information about these communications.

    NPR Veteran Uri Berliner Reveals How Mainstream Newsrooms Have Lost Credibility

    “The Select Subcommittee is now aware of potential further attempts by Dr. [David] Morens to subvert public transparency,” the letter said. “Specifically, the Select Subcommittee has been made aware of alleged communications between Dr. Morens and you regarding EcoHealth Alliance.

    “These communications included emails from Dr. [David] Morens’ personal Gmail account to you and Dr. Peter Daszak of EcoHealth,” the letter adds.

    Critics say the use of a personal email account allowed Morens to avoid having his emails obtained by official records requests.

    At least some of the email exchanges, handed over by a whistleblower, were with Dr. Peter Daszak, who leads EcoHealth, the controversial research group accused of having a role in the creation of COVID-19.

    The federal government has denied the claim that partially taxpayer-funded EcoHealth had a role in COVID’s origin.

    EcoHealth is a U.S. nonprofit research company that used taxpayer-funded grants to carry out coronavirus research.

    How Taxpayers Will Heavily Subsidize Democrat Boots on the Ground This Election

    Federal records show that EcoHealth was conducting coronavirus research involving bats in China when the pandemic broke out.

    As The Center Square previously reported, a federal grant database reports that the same group has received millions in taxpayer funds from the federal government over the past decade to research coronaviruses that originate in animals and in some cases can transfer to humans.

    A highly disputed part of the inquiry is whether EcoHealth Alliance’s research involved making coronaviruses more dangerous to humans.

    As lawmakers have dug into the issue, they have raised more questions.

    “In today’s letter to Dr. Keusch and Boston University, Chairman Wenstrup is requesting the production of any documents and communication related to correspondence with Dr. Morens, Dr. Daszak, and other individuals and entities with knowledge of and access to COVID-19 origins material,” Wenstrup’s office said. “This letter continues our investigation into the potential cover-up of COVID-19 origins information by America’s public health authorities.”

    EcoHealth released a statement after initial reports of these emails rebuffing many of the claims and releasing what it says are the original emails in question in a news release.

    “These reports do not show the full text of the emails in question, but allege that they are part of a cover up, or represent inappropriate communications,” the group said in a statement. “Contrary to the news reports, they show clearly that EcoHealth Alliance was appropriately communicating with senior staff at the NIH, or who formerly worked at NIH, to try to identify ways to reinstate a grant that had been terminated unexpectedly and arbitrarily, then suspended with onerous conditions. The grant was subsequently reinstated by NIH, and EcoHealth Alliance is currently working under this grant to conduct critical scientific research to prevent future pandemics.”

    Catherine Herridge Describes CBS News Seizing Her Files In Shocking Capitol Hill Testimony

    U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in particular has been outpoken on this issue, stating that more than a dozen federal agencies were aware that federally funded research was being done on coronaviruses in China to make them more dangerous.

    “Newly obtained documents confirm yet again Fauci lied about COVID. Fauci’s NIH lab was a partner with Wuhan on a proposal to engineer a highly transmissible coronavirus in 2018,” Paul wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “But he wasn’t alone, 15 government agencies knew about it and said nothing. Americans deserve answers.”

    Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

    The Center Square

    Source link

  • Lab leak is not a conspiracy theory, Anthony Fauci concedes

    Lab leak is not a conspiracy theory, Anthony Fauci concedes

    Former White House coronavirus advisor Anthony Fauci doesn’t believe the lab leak explanation of COVID-19’s origins is a conspiracy theory. He admitted as much during a closed-door grilling session before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic on Monday. Legislators did not release a transcript of his testimony, but Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R–Ohio), the chairman of the subcommittee, published some highlights on X (formerly Twitter).

    In recent months, Fauci has denied he ever categorically rejected the possibility that COVID-19 accidentally escaped from a laboratory. But he faces very serious allegations that he deterred scientific experts from considering it. At issue is “The Proximal Origin of Sars-CoV-2,” a paper that appeared in Nature Medicine, a scientific journal, in March 2020 at the very start of the global pandemic. Fauci—who was then head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)—and Francis Collins—then director of the National Institutes of Health—participated in a conference call with the authors, whose initial openness to a lab leak explanation changed significantly prior to publication. The paper ultimately ruled out a lab leak as not just “unlikely”—the phrasing used in an early draft of the paper—but “improbable.”

    More recently, Fauci has contended that he always remained open to the idea, but was persuaded by scientific arguments—including those in the proximal origin paper—that a zoonotic spillover was more likely. This claim would be more persuasive if Fauci had not stated over and over and over and over again, in media interviews, that he “strongly favored” the zoonotic origin theory; his subsequent suggestion that he did not lean in either direction is flatly contradicted by his literal words.

    It was certainly in Fauci’s interest to downplay the possibility that human experimentation on viruses accidentally unleashed COVID-19 upon the world; during his career, Fauci remained one of the foremost advocates of public funding for gain-of-function research, in which scientists manipulate viruses in order to make them deadlier and more transmissible. Fauci and other public health experts have straightforwardly denied that the U.S. funded such research in Wuhan, China, but critics say this is an exercise in semantics. Indeed, EcoHealth Alliance—a U.S. nonprofit that obtained public funding to conduct research on bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China—was caught actively misleading Pentagon officials about the nature of the experimentation: Peter Daszak, the head of EcoHealth Alliance, advised colleagues to deceive regulators about the fact that the research would be conducted in China under laxer lab safety standards.

    A cadre of elite scientists deliberately lied to U.S. security officials in order to spend American tax dollars performing risky experiments under substandard laboratory conditions in a notoriously secretive and authoritarian foreign country. Maybe those experiments created COVID-19, and maybe they didn’t. In any case, it’s clearly not a conspiracy theory; good of Fauci to recognize the obvious, however belatedly it might be.

    One can debate the extent of Fauci’s wrongdoing here—but it’s the mainstream media that really dropped the ball in terms of lab leak discourse. The Washington Post was an early offender, accusing Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) of “repeating a coronavirus theory that was already debunked.” The article explicitly applied the phrase “conspiracy theory” to the lab leak idea; The New York Times did the same, noting that the lab leak had been “dismissed by scientists.” In fact, The Times‘ lead coronavirus reporter, Apoorva Mandavilli, went a step further, calling lab leak a racist theory.

    Mandavilli’s tone toward the lab leak was broadly representative of a whole host of mainstream journalists, media commentators, and so-called fact-checkers and misinformation experts. Following this flawed consensus, social media sites—including Facebook—brutally suppressed any and all discussion of the lab leak theory on their platforms. As recently as August 2023, The Journal of the American Medical Association was still counting lab leak discourse online as evidence of the unstoppable spread of misinformation online. And the Global Disinformation Index—a British non-profit that received funding from the State Department, and tarred Reason as an unsafe news website—warned that blaming the pandemic on a lab leak could lead to racist attacks on Asian people.

    That’s a long way of saying that self-appointed misinformation cops went to great efforts to censor and stigmatize this topic of conversation, on grounds that it was either racist, or a conspiracy theory, or both. Yet it is neither; even Fauci says so. One might hope that this would prompt some self-reflection within media circles. The anti-misinformation crowd wasn’t just wrong—they were militant that it was of vital importance to stop everyone from even contemplating the possibility of a lab leak theory.

    There’s a perniciousness underlying this attitude, and one that clearly threatens free speech, as many U.S. political figures—including President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.)—have decided that the federal government should do more to combat purported misinformation. They might consider whether they themselves have been misinformed.

    Robby Soave

    Source link

  • ‘America funded it’: Rand Paul blasts Fauci and the media for suppressing the lab leak theory

    ‘America funded it’: Rand Paul blasts Fauci and the media for suppressing the lab leak theory

    Remember when Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) accused then–White House COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci of funding China’s Wuhan virus lab?

    Fauci replied, “Senator Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about.”

    The media loved it. Vanity Fair smirked, “Fauci Once Again Forced to Basically Call Rand Paul a Sniveling Moron.”

    But now the magazine has changed its tune, admitting, “In Major Shift, NIH Admits Funding Risky Virus Research in Wuhan” and “Paul might have been onto something.”

    Then what about question two: Did COVID-19 occur because of a leak from that lab?

    When Paul confronted Fauci, saying, “The evidence is pointing that it came from the lab!” Fauci replied, “I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating.”

    Was Paul lying? What’s the truth?

    The media told us COVID came from an animal, possibly a bat.

    But in my new video, Paul points out there were “reports of 80,000 animals being tested. No animals with it.”

    Now he’s released a book, Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up, that charges Fauci and others with funding dangerous research and then covering it up.

    “Three people in the Wuhan lab got sick with a virus of unknown origin in November of 2019,” says Paul. The Wuhan lab is 1,000 kilometers away from where bats live.

    Today the FBI, the Energy Department, and others agree with Paul. They believe COVID most likely came from a lab.

    I ask Paul, “COVID came from evil Chinese scientists, in a lab, funded by America?”

    “America funded it,” he replies, “maybe not done with evil intentions. It was done with the misguided notion that ‘gain-of-function’ research was safe.”

    Gain-of-function research includes making viruses stronger.

    The purpose is to anticipate what might happen in nature and come up with vaccines in advance. So I push back at Paul, “They’re trying to find ways to stop diseases!”

    He replies, “Many scientists have now looked at this and said, ‘We’ve been doing this gain-of-function research for quite a while.’ The likelihood that you create something that creates a vaccine that’s going to help anybody is pretty slim to none.”

    Paul points out that Fauci supported “gain-of-function” research.

    “He said in 2012, even if a pandemic occurs…the knowledge is worth it.” Fauci did write: “The benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

    Paul answers: “Well, that’s a judgment call. There’s probably 16 million families around the world who might disagree with that.”

    Fauci and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) didn’t give money directly to the Chinese lab. They gave it to a nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance. The group works to protect people from infectious diseases.

    “They were able to accumulate maybe over $100 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars, and a lot of it was funneled to Wuhan,” says Paul.

    EcoHealth Alliance is run by zoologist Peter Daszak. Before the pandemic, Daszak bragged about combining coronaviruses in Wuhan.

    Once COVID broke out, Daszak became less eager to talk about these experiments. He won’t talk to me.

    “Peter Daszak has refused to reveal his communications with the Wuhan lab,” complains Paul. “I do think that ultimately there is a great deal of culpability on his part.… They squelched all dissent and said, ‘You’re a conspiracy theorist if you’re saying this [came from a lab],’ but they didn’t reveal that they had a monetary self-incentive to cover this up,” says Paul.

    “The media is weirdly uncurious about this,” I say to Paul.

    “We have a disease that killed maybe 16 million people,” Paul responds. “And they’re not curious as to how we got it?”

    Also, our NIH still funds gain of function research, Paul says.

    “This is a risk to civilization. We could wind up with a virus…that leaks out of a lab and kills half of the planet,” Paul warns.

    Paul’s book reveals much more about Fauci and EcoHealth Alliance. I will cover more of that in this column in a few weeks.

    COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

    John Stossel

    Source link

  • Fauci Exposes Ugly Reality Behind DeSantis’ Dangerous Attacks

    Fauci Exposes Ugly Reality Behind DeSantis’ Dangerous Attacks

    Dr. Anthony Fauci on Thursday gave a dignified response to attacks from the right that have left him requiring security protection for his own safety.

    MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan played Fauci footage of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) telling supporters last year that “someone needs to grab that little elf and chuck him across the Potomac.”

    Hasan asked Fauci if he considered DeSantis’ comment a threat and suggested the 2024 Republican presidential candidate had incited violence.

    Fauci acknowledged he’d become a symbol of hate for the far-right after he publicly disagreed with then-President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

    “DeSantis doesn’t personally want to hurt me but he’s triggering people who are bad and really want to hurt people, that’s the problem,” said Fauci.

    Source link

  • This Fall’s COVID Vaccines Are for Everyone

    This Fall’s COVID Vaccines Are for Everyone

    Paul Offit is not an anti-vaxxer. His résumé alone would tell you that: A pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, he is the co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine for infants that has been credited with saving “hundreds of lives every day”; he is the author of roughly a dozen books on immunization that repeatedly debunk anti-vaccine claims. And from the earliest days of COVID-19 vaccines, he’s stressed the importance of getting the shots. At least, up to a certain point.

    Like most of his public-health colleagues, Offit strongly advocates annual COVID shots for those at highest risk. But regularly reimmunizing young and healthy Americans is a waste of resources, he told me, and invites unnecessary exposure to the shots’ rare but nontrivial side effects. If they’ve already received two or three doses of a COVID vaccine, as is the case for most, they can stop—and should be told as much.

    His view cuts directly against the CDC’s new COVID-vaccine guidelines, announced Tuesday following an advisory committee’s 13–1 vote: Every American six months or older should get at least one dose of this autumn’s updated shot. For his less-than-full-throated support for annual vaccination, Offit has become a lightning rod. Peers in medicine and public health have called his opinions “preposterous.” He’s also been made into an unlikely star in anti-vaccine circles. Public figures with prominently shot-skeptical stances have approvingly parroted his quotes. Right-leaning news outlets that have featured vaccine misinformation have called him up for quotes and sound bites—a sign, he told me, that as a public-health expert “you screwed up somehow.”

    Offit stands by his opinion, the core of which is certainly scientifically sound: Some sectors of the population are at much higher risk for COVID than the rest of us. But the crux of the controversy around his view is not about facts alone. At this point in the pandemic, in a country where seasonal vaccine uptake is worryingly low and direly inequitable, where health care is privatized and piecemeal, where anti-vaccine activists will pull at any single loose thread, many experts now argue that policies riddled with ifs, ands, or buts—factually sound though they may be—are not the path toward maximizing uptake. “The nuanced, totally correct way can also be the garbled-message way,” Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told me.

    For the past two years, the United States’ biggest COVID-vaccine problem hasn’t been that too many young and healthy people are clamoring for shots and crowding out more vulnerable groups. It’s been that no one, really—including those who most need additional doses—is opting for additional injections at all. America’s vaccination pipeline is already so riddled with obstacles that plenty of public-health experts have become deeply hesitant to add more. They’re opting instead for a simple, proactive message—one that is broadly inclusive—in the hope that a concerted push for all will nudge at least some fraction of the public to actually get a shot this year.

    On several key vaccination points, experts do largely agree. The people who bear a disproportionate share of COVID’s risk should receive a disproportionate share of immunization outreach, says Saad Omer, the dean of UT Southwestern’s O’Donnell School of Public Health.

    Choosing which groups to prioritize, however, is tricky. Offit told me he sees four groups as being at highest risk: people who are pregnant, immunocompromised, over the age of 70, or dealing with multiple chronic health conditions. Céline Gounder, an infectious-disease specialist and epidemiologist at NYC Health + Hospitals/Bellevue, who mostly aligns with Offit’s stance, would add other groups based on exposure risk: people living in shelters, jails, or other group settings, for instance, and potentially people who work in health care. (Both Gounder and Offit also emphasize that unvaccinated people, especially infants, should get their shots this year, period.) But there are other vulnerable groups to consider. Risk of severe COVID still stratifies by factors such as socioeconomic status and race, concentrating among groups who are already disproportionately disconnected from health care.

    That’s a potentially lengthy list—and messy messaging has hampered pandemic responses before. As Gretchen Chapman, a vaccine-behavior expert at Carnegie Mellon University, told me last month, a key part of improving uptake is “making it easy, making it convenient, making it the automatic thing.” Fauci agrees. Offit, had he been at the CDC’s helm, would have strongly recommended the vaccine for only his four high-risk groups, and merely allowed everyone else to get it if they wanted to—drawing a stark line between those who should and those who may. Fauci, meanwhile, approves of the CDC’s decision. If it were entirely up to him, “I would recommend it for everyone” for the sheer sake of clarity, he told me.

    The benefit-risk ratio for the young and healthy, Fauci told me, is lower than it is for older or sicker people, but “it’s not zero.” Anyone can end up developing a severe case of COVID. That means that shoring up immunity, especially with a shot that targets a recent coronavirus variant, will still bolster protection against the worst outcomes. Secondarily, the doses will lower the likelihood of infection and transmission for at least several weeks. Amid the current rise in cases, that protection could soften short-term symptoms and reduce people’s chances of developing long COVID; it could minimize absences from workplaces and classrooms; it could curb spread within highly immunized communities. For Fauci, those perks are all enough to tip the scales.

    Offit did tell me that he’s frustrated at the way his views have frequently been framed. Some people, for instance, are inaccurately portraying him as actively dissuading people from signing up for shots. “I’m not opposed to offering the vaccine for anyone who wants it,” he told me. In the case of the young and healthy, “I just don’t think they need another dose.” He often uses himself as an example: At 72 years old, Offit didn’t get the bivalent shot last fall, because he says he’s in good health; he also won’t be getting this year’s XBB.1-targeting brew. Three original-recipe shots, plus a bout of COVID, are protection enough for him. He gave similar advice to his two adult children, he told me, and he’d say the same to a healthy thrice-dosed teen: More vaccine is “low risk, low reward.”

    The vax-for-all guideline isn’t incompatible, exactly, with a more targeted approach. Even with a universal recommendation in place, government resources could be funneled toward promoting higher uptake among essential-to-protect groups. But in a country where people, especially adults, are already disinclined to vaccinate, other experts argue that the slight difference between these two tactics could compound into a chasm between public-health outcomes. A strong recommendation for all, followed by targeted implementation, they argue, is more likely to result in higher vaccination rates all around, including in more vulnerable populations. Narrow recommendations, meanwhile, could inadvertently exclude people who really need the shot, while inviting scrutiny over a vaccine’s downsides—cratering uptake in high- and low-risk groups alike. Among Americans, avoiding a strong recommendation for certain populations could be functionally synonymous with explicitly discouraging those people from getting a shot at all.

    Offit pointed out to me that several other countries, including the United Kingdom, have issued recommendations that target COVID vaccines to high-risk groups, as he’d hoped the U.S. would. “What I’ve said is really nothing that other countries haven’t said,” Offit told me. But the situation in the U.S. is arguably different. Our health care is privatized and far more difficult to access and navigate. People who are unable to, or decide not to, access a shot have a weaker, more porous safety net—especially if they lack insurance. (Plus, in the U.K., cost was reportedly a major policy impetus.) A broad recommendation cuts against these forces, especially because it makes it harder for insurance companies to deny coverage.

    A weaker call for COVID shots would also make that recommendation incongruous with the CDC’s message on flu shots—another universal call for all Americans six months and older to dose up each year. Offit actually does endorse annual shots for the flu: Immunity to flu viruses erodes faster, he argues, and flu vaccines are “safer” than COVID ones.

    It’s true that COVID and the flu aren’t identical—not least because SARS-CoV-2 continues to kill and chronically sicken more people each year. But other experts noted that the cadence of vaccination isn’t just about immunity. Recent studies suggest that, at least for now, the coronavirus is shape-shifting far faster than seasonal flu viruses are—a point in favor of immunizing more regularly, says Vijay Dhanasekaran, a viral-evolution researcher at the University of Hong Kong. The coronavirus is also, for now, simply around for more of the year, which makes infections more likely and frequent—and regular vaccination perhaps more prudent. Besides, scientifically and logistically, “flu is the closest template we have,” Ali Ellebedy, an immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis, told me. Syncing the two shots’ schedules could have its own rewards: The regularity and predictability of flu vaccination, which is typically higher among the elderly, could buoy uptake of COVID shots—especially if manufacturers are able to bundle the immunizations into the same syringe.

    Flu’s touchstone may be especially important this fall. With the newly updated shots arriving late in the season, and COVID deaths still at a relative low, experts are predicting that uptake may be worse than it was last year, when less than 20 percent of people opted in to the bivalent dose. A recommendation from the CDC “is just the beginning” of reversing that trend, Omer, of UT Southwestern, told me. Getting the shots also needs to be straightforward and routine. That could mean actively promoting them in health-care settings, making it easier for providers to check if their patients are up to date, guaranteeing availability for the uninsured, and conducting outreach to the broader community—especially to vulnerable groups.

    Offit hasn’t changed his mind on who most needs these new COVID vaccines. But he is rethinking how he talks about it: “I will stop putting myself in a position where I’m going to be misinterpreted,” he told me. After the past week, he more clearly sees the merits of focusing on who should be signing up rather than who doesn’t need another dose. Better to emphasize the importance of the shot for the people he worries most about and recommend it to them, without reservation, to whatever extent we can.

    Katherine J. Wu

    Source link

  • Four takeaways from Walter Isaacson’s biography of Elon Musk | CNN Business

    Four takeaways from Walter Isaacson’s biography of Elon Musk | CNN Business



    CNN
     — 

    “You’ll never be successful,” Errol Musk in 1989 told his 17-year-old son Elon, who was then preparing to fly from South Africa to Canada to find relatives and a college education.

    That’s one of the scenes Walter Isaacson paints in his 670-page biography of Elon Musk, who is now the richest person who ever lived. The biography allows readers new glimpses into the private life of the entrepreneur who popularized electric vehicles for the masses and landed rocket boosters hurtling back to Earth so they could be reused.

    But Musk’s public statements and actions have become increasingly unhinged, filing and threatening lawsuits against nonprofits that fight hate speech and allowing some of the internet’s worst actors to regain their platforms.

    Isaacson portrays Musk as a restless genius with a turbulent upbringing on the cusp of launching a new AI company along with his five other companies.

    Musk allowed Isaacson to shadow him for two years but exercised no control over the biography’s contents, the author said.

    Here are four key takeaways.

    Musk’s upbringing and father haunt him

    Isaacson’s book attributes much of Musk’s drive to his upbringing. He recounts the emotional scars inflicted on Musk by his father, which, Isaacson writes, caused Musk to become “a tough yet vulnerable man-child with an exceedingly high tolerance for risk, a craving for drama, an epic sense of mission and a maniacal intensity that was callous and at times destructive.”

    Musk decided to live with his father from age 10 to 17, enduring what Musk and others describe as occasional but regular verbal taunts and abuse. Musk’s sister, Tosca, said Errol would sometimes lecture his children for hours, “calling you worthless, pathetic, making scarring and evil comments, not allowing you to leave.”

    Elon Musk became estranged from his father, though he has occasionally supported his father financially. In a 2022 email sent to Elon Musk on Father’s Day, Errol Musk said he was freezing and lacking electricity, asking his son for money.

    In the letter, Errol made racist comments about Black leaders in South Africa. “With no Whites here, the Blacks will go back to the trees,” he wrote.

    Elon Musk has said that he opposes racism and discrimination, but hate speech has flourished on X, formerly known as Twitter, since he purchased it 11 months ago, according to the Anti-Defamation League. Musk threatened to sue the ADL for defamation last week, arguing that the nonprofit’s statements have caused his company to lose significant advertising revenue.

    Isaacson reported that Errol, in other emails, denounced Covid as “a lie” and attacked Dr. Anthony Fauci, the United States’ former top infectious disease expert who played a prominent role in the government’s fight against the pandemic.

    Elon Musk, similarly, has criticized Fauci and raised many questions about public health policy during the pandemic. But he has said he supports vaccination, even if he doesn’t believe the shots should be mandated.

    Musk’s fluid family and obsession with population

    Musk has a fluid mix of girlfriends, ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and significant others, and he has many children with multiple women. Isaacson’s book revealed Musk had a third child (Techno Mechanicus) with the musician Grimes in 2022, and Musk confirmed the revelation Sunday.

    Musk has frequently stated that humans must be a multiplanetary species, warning space exploration will ensure the future of humanity. He similarly has spoken numerous times that people need to have more children.

    “Population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming,” Musk said last year.

    Musk has referred to his desire to increase the global population as an explanation for his unique family situation.

    The book reports that Musk encouraged employees such as Shivon Zilis, a top operations officer at his Neuralink company, to have many children. “He feared that declining birthrates were a threat to the long-term survival of human consciousness,” Isaacson writes.

    Although the book presents their relationship as a platonic work friendship, Musk volunteered to donate sperm to Zilis. She agreed and had twins in 2021 via in vitro fertilization; she did not tell people who the biological father was.

    Zilis and Grimes were friendly, but Musk did not tell Grimes about the twins, according to the book.

    Musk asked Zilis if her twins might like to take his last name. Isaacson reports that Grimes was upset in 2022 when she learned the news that Musk had fathered children with Zilis.

    “Doing my best to help the underpopulation crisis,” Musk tweeted at the time, trying to defuse the tension. “A collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by far.”

    One of Musk’s children, Jenna, often criticized her father’s wealth specifically and capitalism broadly. In 2022, she disowned her father, which Isaacson reports saddened Musk.

    Isaacson reports that Musk’s fractured relationship with Jenna, who is trans, partly led to Musk’s rightward turn toward libertarianism and questioning what he considers the “woke-mind-virus, which is fundamentally antiscience, antimerit, and antihuman.”

    Musk has called into question the use of alternate gender pronouns and made numerous statements some critics consider to be anti-trans.

    “I absolutely support trans, but all these pronouns are an esthetic nightmare,” Musk posted in 2020.

    But in December 2020 he also posted a tweet, since deleted, that said “when you put he/him in your bio” alongside a drawing of an 18th century soldier rubbing blood on his face in front of a pile of dead bodies and wearing a cap that read “I love to oppress.”

    Late last year, he tweeted: “My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci.”

    The purchase of his favorite social media platform, gutting the staff and tinkering with policies and branding have taken time and resources away from Musk’s other companies and projects, Isaacson reports.

    “I’ve got a bad habit of biting off more than I can chew,” Musk told Isaacson at one point.

    After a protracted legal battle over his decision to purchase Twitter, Musk said he regained his enthusiasm for taking over the company when he realized that he wanted to prevent a world where people silo off into their own echo chambers and would prefer a world of civil discourse.

    But Isaacson notes “he would end up undermining that important mission with statements and tweets that ended up chasing off progressives and mainstream media types to other social networks.”

    Musk team members, such as his business manager Jared Birchall, his lawyer Alex Spiro and his brother Kimbal, sometimes try to restrain Musk from sending text messages or tweets that could create legal or economic peril, according to the book. Some friends convinced him to place his phone in a hotel safe overnight on one occasion, before Musk summoned hotel security to open the safe for him.

    During Christmas in 2022 with his brother, Kimbal warned Elon about how fast he was making enemies. “It’s like the days of high school, when you kept getting beaten up,” he said. Kimbal stopped following Elon on Twitter after his brother’s tweets about Fauci and other conspiracies. “Stop falling for weird s—.”

    Are robocars, an AI company and a robot called Optimus on tap?

    Musk continues moving forward on new engineering projects. Since 2021, Musk has been working on a “humanoid” robot called Optimus that walks on two legs instead of like four-legged robots coming from other labs. He unveiled an early version of the Optimus robot in September of 2022. Musk told engineers that humanoid robots will “uncork the economy to quasi-infinite levels,” according to Isaacson, by doing jobs humans find dangerous or repetitive.

    Some of Musk’s top engineers are also working on a “robotaxi,” a driverless vehicle that shows up like an Uber. This past summer, he spent hours each week preparing new factory designs in Texas to produce the next-generation Tesla cars that would look similar to Tesla’s cybertruck.

    Musk is also starting his own AI company called X.AI, which he told Isaacson will compete with Google, Microsoft and other companies surging ahead in the past year with public AI projects. Musk had co-founded OpenAi with Sam Altman in 2015 and contributed $100 million to the non-profit. He became angry when Altman converted the project into a for-profit. Musk also ended a friendship with Larry Page when the two disagreed on AI. According to the book, Musk believes he has a better vision for AI and humanity and thinks the data he owns from Tesla and Twitter will be an asset to his next AI plans.

    “Could you get the rockets to orbit or the transition to electric vehicles without accepting all aspects of him, hinged and unhinged?” Isaacson asks in the last chapter.

    Source link

  • RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a long history of making problematic remarks and hawking conspiracy theories. The Onion examines some of his most controversial statements.

    “I can do decent push-ups.”

    “I can do decent push-ups.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    Flexing your elbows ever so slightly while you lower yourself half an inch toward the ground is not a fucking push-up.

    “I am a lifelong Democrat.”

    “I am a lifelong Democrat.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    Anyone unwilling to switch political parties for personal gain has no business becoming president.

    “Dr. Anthony Fauci should be hanged for treason.”

    “Dr. Anthony Fauci should be hanged for treason.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    Federal law states that all executions must be carried out by lethal injection.

    “I am the guy on money.”

    “I am the guy on money.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    RFK Jr. is almost definitely not the guy on money.

    “Gorillas are genetically engineered to make men feel bad about their bodies.”

    “Gorillas are genetically engineered to make men feel bad about their bodies.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    If this is true, then why are most gorillas under 6 feet tall?

    “America’s best days are ahead.”

    “America’s best days are ahead.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    Get this lunatic back to the asylum.

    “The government wants you to think it’s the second door on your left.”

    “The government wants you to think it’s the second door on your left.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    Jesus, just say where the bathroom is.

    “Jews.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    That’s all he said, but we didn’t like his tone.

    “I was the leader of the environmental movement.”

    “I was the leader of the environmental movement.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    Thankfully, he did such a good job that it’s not a problem anymore, freeing him up to worry about things like cancel culture and deplatforming.

    “Covid-19 was created by the National Park Service to get people to enjoy hiking.”

    “Covid-19 was created by the National Park Service to get people to enjoy hiking.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    He also repeatedly claimed that Yosemite caused autism.

    “I have a Dippin’ Dots machine at my house.”

    “I have a Dippin’ Dots machine at my house.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    “The bullet that killed my father was Jewish.”

    “The bullet that killed my father was Jewish.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    He’s repeatedly claimed the bullet that killed his father was Jewish, making the same claim about the bullet that killed his uncle JFK and the small plane that killed his cousin JFK Jr.

    “Vaccines cause autism.”

    “Vaccines cause autism.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    He was simply quoting the distinguished pediatric neurologist Jenny McCarthy.

    “Autism gives you wings.”

    “Autism gives you wings.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    To be fair, he said this while very tired and staring at a can of Red Bull.

    “I assassinated my uncle, John F. Kennedy.”

    “I assassinated my uncle, John F. Kennedy.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    Everyone knows JFK was killed by the polio vaccine.

    “Our great-great-grandfather drove all the Jews out of Massachusetts.”

    “Our great-great-grandfather drove all the Jews out of Massachusetts.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    While wrongheaded and antisemitic, it seems like it’s a really important part of his understanding of his family’s lore.

    “I’m the hottest Kennedy.”

    “I’m the hottest Kennedy.”

    Image for article titled RFK Jr.’s Most Outrageous Remarks

    The most attractive Kennedy was Joseph Kennedy Sr. and everyone knows it.

    You’ve Made It This Far…

    You’ve Made It This Far…

    Source link

  • The Republican Lab-Leak Circus Makes One Important Point

    The Republican Lab-Leak Circus Makes One Important Point

    For more than three hours yesterday, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic grilled a pair of virologists about their participation in an alleged “cover-up” of the pandemic’s origins. Republican lawmakers zeroed in on evidence that the witnesses, Kristian Andersen and Robert Garry, and other researchers had initially suspected that the coronavirus spread from a Chinese lab. “Accidental escape is in fact highly likely—it’s not some fringe theory,” Andersen wrote in a Slack message to a colleague on February 2, 2020. When he laid out the same concern to Anthony Fauci in late January, that some features of the viral genome looked like they might be engineered, Fauci told him to consider going to the FBI.

    But days later, Andersen, Garry, and the other scientists were starting to coalesce around a different point of view: Those features were more likely to have developed via natural evolution. The scientists wrote up this revised assessment in an influential paper, published in the journal Nature Medicine in March 2020, called “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” The virus is clearly “not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus,” the paper said; in fact, the experts now “did not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible,” and that the pandemic almost certainly started with a “zoonotic event”—which is to say, the spillover of an animal virus into human populations. That analysis would be cited repeatedly by scientists and media outlets in the months that followed, in support of the idea that the lab-leak theory had been thoroughly debunked.

    The researchers’ rapid and consequential change of heart, as revealed through emails, witness interviews, and Slack exchanges, is now a wellspring for Republicans’ suspicions. “All of a sudden, you did a 180,” Representative Nicole Malliotakis of New York said yesterday morning. “What happened?”

    Based on the available facts, the answer seems clear enough: Andersen, Garry, and the others looked more closely at the data, and decided that their fears about a lab leak had been unwarranted; the viral features were simply not as weird as they’d first thought. The political conversation around this episode is not so easily summarized, however. Yesterday’s hearing was less preoccupied with the small, persistent possibility that the coronavirus really did leak out from a lab than with the notion of a conspiracy—a cover-up—that, according to Republicans, involved Fauci and others in the U.S. government swaying Andersen and Garry to leave behind their scientific judgment and endorse “pro-China talking points” instead. (Fauci has denied that he tried to disprove the lab-leak theory.)

    Barbed accusations of this kind have only added headaches to the question of how the pandemic really started. For all of its distractions, though, the House investigation still serves a useful purpose: It sheds light on how discussions of the lab-leak theory went so very, very wrong, and turned into an endless, stultifying spectacle. In that way, the hearing—and the story that it tells about the “Proximal Origin” paper—gestures not toward the true origin of COVID, but toward the origin of the origins debate.

    From the start, the problem has been that a “lab leak” could mean many things. The term may refer to the release of a manufactured bioweapon, or to an accident involving basic-science research; it could involve a germ with genes deliberately inserted, or one that was rapidly evolved inside a cage or in a dish, or even a virus from the wild, brought into a lab and released by accident (in unaltered form) in a city like Wuhan. Yet all these categories blurred together in the early days of the pandemic. The confusion was made plain when Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a hard-core China hawk, aired a proto-lab-leak theory in a February 16, 2020 interview with Fox News. “This virus did not originate in the Wuhan animal market,” he told the network. He later continued, “just a few miles away from that food market is China’s only biosafety-level-4 super-laboratory that researches human infectious diseases. Now, we don’t have evidence that this disease originated there, but because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question.”

    Cotton did not specifically suggest that the Chinese “super-laboratory” was weaponizing viruses, nor did he say that any laboratory accident would necessarily have involved a genetically engineered virus, as opposed to one that had been cultured or collected from a bat cave. Nevertheless, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that the senator had repeated a “fringe theory” about the coronavirus that was going around in right-wing circles at the time, that it had been manufactured by the Chinese government as a bioweapon. It was hard for reporters to imagine that Cotton could have been suggesting anything but that: The idea that Chinese scientists might have been collecting wild viruses, and doing research just to understand them, was not yet thinkable in that chaotic, early moment of pandemic spread. “Lab leak” was simply understood to mean “the virus is a bioweapon.”

    Scientists knew better. On the same day that Cotton gave his interview, one of Andersen and Garry’s colleagues posted the “Proximal Origin” paper on the web as an unpublished manuscript. (“Important to get this out,” Garry wrote in an email sent to the group the following morning. He included a link to the Washington Post article about Cotton described above.) In this version, the researchers were quite precise about what, exactly, they were aiming to debunk: The authors said, specifically, that their analysis clearly showed the virus had not been genetically engineered. It might well have been produced through cell-culture experiments in a lab, they wrote, though the case for this was “questionable.” And as for the other lab-leak possibilities—that a Wuhan researcher was infected by the virus while collecting samples from a cave, or that someone brought a sample back and then accidentally released it—the paper took no position whatsoever. “We did not consider any of these scenarios,” Andersen explained in his written testimony for this week’s hearing. If a researcher had indeed been infected in the field, he continued, then he would not have counted it as a “lab leak” to begin with—because that would mean the virus jumped to humans somewhere other than a lab.

    Rather than settling the matter, however, all this careful parsing only led to more confusion. In the early days of the pandemic, and in the context of the Cotton interview and its detractors, too much specificity was deemed a fatal flaw. On February 20, Nature decided to reject the manuscript, at least partly on account of its being too soft in its debunking. A month later, when their paper finally did appear in Nature Medicine, a new sentence had been added near the end: the one discounting “any type of laboratory-based scenario.” At this crucial moment in the pandemic-origins debate, the researchers’ original, narrow claim—that SARS-CoV-2 had not been purposefully assembled—was broadened to include a blanket statement that could be read to mean the lab-leak theory was wrong in all its forms.

    Over time, this aggressive phrasing would cause problems of its own. At first, its elision of several different possible scenarios served the mainstream narrative: We know the virus wasn’t engineered; ergo, it must have started in the market. More recently, the same confusion has served the interests of the lab-leak theorists. Consider a report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on pandemic origins, declassified last month. American intelligence agencies have determined that SARS-CoV-2 was not developed as a bioweapon, it explains, and they are near-unanimous in saying that it was not genetically engineered. (This confirms what Andersen and colleagues said in the first version of their paper, way back in February 2020.) “Most” agencies, the report says, further judge that the virus was not created through cell-culture experiments. Yet the fact that two of the nine agencies nonetheless believe that “a laboratory-associated incident” of any kind is the most likely cause of the first human infection has been taken as a sign that all lab-leak scenarios are still on the table. Thus Republicans in Congress can rail against Facebook for removing posts about the “lab-leak theory,” while ignoring the fact that the platform’s rules only ever prohibited one particular and largely discredited idea, that SARS-CoV-2 was “man-made or manufactured.” (In any case, that prohibition was reversed some three months later.)

    Where does this leave us? The committee’s work does not reveal a cover-up of COVID’s source. At the same time, it does show that the authors of the “Proximal Origin” paper were aware of how their work might shape the public narrative. (In a Slack conversation, one of them referred to “the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release.”) At first they strived to phrase their findings as clearly as they could, and to separate the strong evidence against genetic engineering of the virus—and what Garry called “the bio weapon scenario”—from the lingering possibility that laboratory science might have been involved in some other way. In the final version of their paper, though, they added in language that was rather less precise. This may have helped to muffle the debate in early 2020, but the haze it left behind was noxious and long-lasting.

    Daniel Engber

    Source link

  • DeSantis And Trump Fight Over Who Handled The COVID-19 Pandemic Worse

    DeSantis And Trump Fight Over Who Handled The COVID-19 Pandemic Worse

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and Donald Trump, both declared candidates in the 2024 presidential election, are swatting back and forth at each other over how each handled the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Though most critics of Trump’s actions during the pandemic have accused him of undermining public health guidance, downplaying the severity of the disease and pushing a litany of unverified treatments, DeSantis claimed during a podcast appearance Thursday that Trump had actually delegated too much power to Dr. Anthony Fauci, then the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, throughout the pandemic.

    “I think he did great for three years, but when he turned the country over to Fauci in March of 2020, that destroyed millions of people’s lives,” DeSantis said of Trump on “The Glenn Beck Program,” a day after announcing his candidacy. “And in Florida, we were one of the few that stood up, cut against the grain, took incoming fire from media, bureaucracy, the left, even a lot of Republicans, had school open, preserved businesses.”

    In reality, Florida had the third-highest number of COVID-related deaths in 2021, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In terms of deaths per capita, Florida ranked 18th among the states for that year. In general, blue states had the lower rates of deaths while red states had the highest, data shows.

    Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis talk to each other at a 2018 “Make America Great Again” rally in Tampa, Florida, when DeSantis was running for governor.

    CARLOS BARRIA via Reuters

    Trump also repeatedly ignored and undermined Fauci’s guidance on the pandemic and loudly criticized him when the doctor’s comments on the health crisis veered from Trump’s vision for reopening the economy.

    In a campaign video Thursday, Trump took his own swipe at DeSantis, saying he was the one who poorly managed the COVID-19 response.

    “When the Ron ‘DeSanctimonious’ facts come out, you will see that he is better than most Democrat governors but very average, at best, compared to Republican governors, who have done a fantastic job,” Trump said in a campaign video.

    “Even [former New York Gov. Andrew] Cuomo did better,” Trump hurled at DeSantis, referencing COVID-19 deaths in each state. “He shut down everything, including the beaches.”

    From a public health perspective, neither Trump nor DeSantis did a good job of protecting people during the COVID-19 pandemic, and both put many people at risk for the sake of political gain, critics and infectious disease experts say.

    DeSantis jabbed at Trump again during an appearance on “The Ben Shapiro Show” on Friday.

    “He responded [to the pandemic] by elevating Anthony Fauci and really turning over the reins to Dr. Fauci, and I think to terrible consequences for the United States.”

    DeSantis asserted that he would have ousted Fauci had he been in Trump’s position during the first years of the pandemic.

    “If I’m president — somebody like Fauci is in the government, I will bring them in and I will tell them two things. You’re fired,” the Florida governor said, even though the president would not actually have the power to directly fire someone like Fauci, who was not a political appointee.

    Source link

  • Dr. Anthony Fauci discusses COVID-19 origins and lessons learned 3 years later

    Dr. Anthony Fauci discusses COVID-19 origins and lessons learned 3 years later

    Dr. Anthony Fauci discusses COVID-19 origins and lessons learned 3 years later – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, joins CBS News’ John Dickerson to reflect on three years since the coronavirus pandemic began. He admits we may never know with certainty the origins of COVID-19, and called the scientific response to the virus one of the greatest successes he’s seen.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • Fauci Q&A: On Masking, Vaccines, and What Keeps Him Up at Night

    Fauci Q&A: On Masking, Vaccines, and What Keeps Him Up at Night

    Jan. 30, 2023 – When he was a young boy growing up in Brooklyn, Anthony Fauci loved playing sports. As captain of his high school basketball team, he wanted to be an athlete, but at 5-foot-7, he says it wasn’t in the cards. So, he decided to become a doctor instead. 

    Fauci, who turned 82 in December, stepped down as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that same month, leaving behind a high-profile career in government spanning more than half a century, during which he counseled seven presidents, including Joe Biden. Fauci worked at the National Institutes of Health for 54 years and served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for 38 years. In an interview last week, he spoke to WebMD about his career and his plans for the future. 

    This interview has been edited and condensed.

    It’s only been a few weeks since your official “retirement,” but what’s next for you?

    What’s next for me is certainly not classical retirement. I have probably a few more years of being as active, vigorous, passionate about my field of public health, public service in the arena of infectious diseases and immunology. [I’ve] had the privilege of advising seven presidents of the United States in areas that are fundamentally centered around our response and preparation for emerging infections going back to the early years of HIV, pandemic flu, bird flu, Ebola, Zika, and now, most recently the last 3 years, with COVID. What I want to do in the next few years, by writing, by lecturing, and by serving in a senior advisory role, is to hopefully inspire young people to go into the field of medicine and science, and perhaps even to consider going into the area of public service. 

    Almost certainly, I’ll begin working on a memoir. So that’s what I’d like to do over the next few years.

    Are you looking forward to going back and seeing patients and being out of the public eye?

    I will almost certainly associate myself with a medical center, either one locally here in the Washington, DC, area or some of the other medical centers that have expressed an interest in my joining the faculty. I am not going to dissociate myself from clinical medicine, since clinical medicine is such an important part of my identity and has been thus literally for well over 50 years. So, I’m not exactly sure of the venue in which I will do that, but I certainly will have some connection with clinical medicine.

    What are you looking forward to most about going back to doctoring?

    Well, I’ve always had a great deal of attraction to the concept of medicine, the application of medicine. I have taken care of thousands of patients in my long career. I spent a considerable amount of time in the early years of HIV, even before we knew it was HIV, taking care of desperately ill patients. I’ve been involved in a number of clinical research projects, and I was always fascinated by that because there’s much gratification and good feeling you get when you take care of, personally, an individual patient, when you do research that advances the field, and those advances that you may have been a part of benefit larger numbers of patients that are being taken care of by other physicians throughout the country and perhaps even throughout the world. 

    So those are all of the aspects of clinical medicine that I want to encourage younger people that these are the opportunities that they can be a part of, which can be very gratifying and certainly productive in the sense of saving lives.

    Looking back over your career, what were some of the highs and lows, or turning points?

    I first became involved in the personal care and research on persons with HIV, literally in the fall of 1981. [That was] weeks to months after the first cases were recognized. My colleagues and I spent the next few years taking care of desperately ill patients, and we did not have effective therapies because the first couple of years, we did not even know what the ideologic agent was. Even after it was recognized after 1983 and 1984, it took several years before effective therapies were developed, so there was a period of time where we were in a very difficult situation. We were essentially putting Band-Aids on hemorrhages, metaphorically, because no matter what we did, our patients continued to decline. That was a low and dark period of our lives, inspired only by the bravery and the resilience of our patients. A very high period was in [the late 1990s] and into the next century [with the development] of drugs that were highly effective in prolonged and effective suppression of viral loads to the point where people who were living with HIV, if they had access to therapy, could essentially lead a normal lifespan..

    We put together the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief program know as PEPFAR, which now, celebrating its 20th anniversary, has resulted in saving 20-25 million lives. So, I would say that is … the highest point in my experience as a physician and a scientist, to have been an important part in the development of that program.

    Do you feel like there’s any unfinished business? Anything you would change? 

    Certainly, there’s unfinished business. One of the goals I would have liked to have achieved, but that is going to have to wait another few years, is the development of a safe and effective vaccine for HIV. A lot of very elegant science has been done in that regard, but we’re not there yet, it’s a very challenging scientific problem. 

    The other unfinished business is some of the other diseases that cause a considerable amount of morbidity and mortality globally, diseases like malaria and tuberculosis. We’ve made extraordinary progress over the 38 years that I’ve been director of the institute We have a vaccine, though it isn’t a perfect vaccine [for malaria]; we have monoclonal antibodies that are now highly effective in preventing malaria; we have newer drugs, better drugs for tuberculosis, but we don’t have an effective vaccine for tuberculosis. So, malaria vaccines, tuberculosis vaccines, those are all unfinished business. I believe we will get there.

    These new COVID-19 variants keep getting more and more contagious. Do you see the potential for a serious new variant that could plunge us back into some level of public restrictions?

    Anything is possible. One cannot predict, exactly, what the likelihood of getting yet again another variant that’s so different that it eludes the protection that we have from the vaccines and from prior infection. Again, I can’t give a number on that. I don’t think it’s highly likely that will happen. 

    Ever since Omicron came well over a year ago, we have had sublineages of Omicron that progressively seem to elude the immune response that’s been developed. But the one thing that’s good and has been sustained is that protection against severity of disease seems to hold out pretty well. I don’t think that we should be talking about restrictions in the sense of draconian methods of shutting things down; I mean, that was only done for a very brief period of time when our hospitals were being overrun. I don’t anticipate that that is going to be something in the future, but you’ve got to be prepared for it. There are some things that have been highly successful, and that is the vaccines that were developed in less than 1 year. And now, our challenge is to get more people to get their updated boosters. 

    There’s already been criticism of the FDA’s discussion about of an annual COVID-19 vaccine. One criticism is that the COVID vaccines’ effectiveness appears to wane after several months, so it would not offer protection for much of the year. Is that a legitimate criticism?

    There’s no perfect solution to keeping the country optimally protected. I believe that it gets down to, “It’s not perfect, but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” We want to get into some regular cadence to get people updated with a booster that is hopefully managed reasonably well to what the circulating variant is. There are certainly going to be people – perhaps the elderly, some of the immune-compromised, and perhaps children – who will need a shot more than once per year, but the FDA’s leaning towards getting a shot that is [timed] with the flu shot, would at least bring some degree of order and stability to the process of people getting into the regular routine of keeping themselves updated and protected to the best extent possible. 

    Do you think we need to move on from mRNA vaccines to something that hopefully has longer-lasting protection?

    Yes, we certainly want next-generation vaccines – both vaccines that have a greater degree of breadth, namely covering multiple variants, as well as a greater degree of duration. So, the real question is, “Is it the mRNA vaccine platform that is inducing a response that is not durable, or is the response against coronaviruses not a durable response?” That’s still uncertain. Yes, we need to do better with a better platform, or an improvement on the platform; that could mean adding adjuvants, that could mean a [nasal] vaccine in addition to a systemic vaccine. 

    Do you always wear a mask when you go out into the world? How do you evaluate the relative risk of situations when you go out in public?

    I’ve been vaccinated, doubly boosted, I’ve gotten infected, and I’ve gotten the bivalent boost. So, I evaluate things depending upon what the level of viral activity is in the particular location where I’m at. If I’m going to go on a plane, for example, I have no idea where these people are coming from, I generally wear a mask on a plane. I don’t really go to congregate settings often. Many of the events I do go to are situations where a requirement for [attending] is to get a test that’s negative that day. 

    When you’re in a situation like that, even if it’s a crowded congregant setting, I don’t have any problem not wearing a mask. But when I’m unsure of what the status is and I might be in an area where there is a considerable degree of viral activity, I would wear a mask. I think you just have to use [your] judgment, depending on the circumstances that you find yourself in.

    Doctors and health care professionals have been through hell during COVID. Do you think this might bring a permanent change to how doctors perceive their jobs?

    Health care providers have been under a considerable amount of stress because this is a totally unprecedented situation that we find ourselves in. This is the likes of which we have not seen in well over 100 years. I hope this is not something that is going to be permanent, I don’t think it is, I think that we are ultimately going to get to a point where the level of virus is low enough that it’s not going to disrupt either society or the health care system or the economy. 

    We’re not totally there yet. We’re still having about 500 deaths per day, which is much, much better than the 3,000 to 4,000 deaths that we were seeing over a year ago, but it is still not low enough to be able to feel comfortable. 

    As a scientist, even a semi-retired one, what scares you? What wakes you up at night with worry? 

    The same thing I have been concerned about for, you know, 40 years: the appearance of a highly transmissible respiratory virus that has a degree of morbidity and mortality that could really be very disruptive of us in this country and globally. Unfortunately, we’re in the middle of that situation now, finishing our third year and going into year 4. So what worries me is yet another pandemic. Now that could be a year from now, 5 years from now, 50 years from now. Remember, the last time a pandemic of this magnitude occurred was well over 100 years ago. My concern is that we stay prepared. [We may] not necessarily prevent the emergence of a new infection, but hopefully we can prevent it from becoming a pandemic.

    Source link

  • Dr. Anthony Fauci on

    Dr. Anthony Fauci on

    Dr. Anthony Fauci on “The Takeout” — 1/6/2023 – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Dr. Anthony Fauci joins Major Garrett on “The Takeout” to discuss the ongoing battle with COVID-19 and the latest subvariant. Dr. Fauci calls misinformation “a horror,” especially when it comes to the vaccine. He also says he doesn’t understand Elon Musk’s tweets about the so-called “Fauci Files” and why he continues to receive death threats after saving millions of lives.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • Chasing the bird flu | 60 Minutes Archive

    Chasing the bird flu | 60 Minutes Archive

    Chasing the bird flu | 60 Minutes Archive – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    From 2005, a report on H5N1, also called avian flu, a bird virus ravaging the poultry industry in Asia which has, on rare occasions, infected humans, killing half of its victims. Steve Kroft spoke with Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the government’s Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, for this story. Fauci is stepping down this week.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • Man who threatened to kill CDC head pleads guilty to charges

    Man who threatened to kill CDC head pleads guilty to charges

    FILE – Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testifies during the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing to examine stopping the spread of monkeypox, focusing on the federal response, in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2022. A Mississippi man who threatened to kill Walensky has pleaded guilty to making threats in interstate commerce, federal prosecutors announced Monday, Dec. 19. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File)

    Source link

  • Elon Musk targets Dr. Anthony Fauci in viral tweet, drawing backlash

    Elon Musk targets Dr. Anthony Fauci in viral tweet, drawing backlash

    As Dr. Anthony Fauci prepares to step down as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the end of the year, the leading immunologist faced derision on social media over the weekend from tech billionaire and Twitter CEO Elon Musk.

    “My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci,” Musk tweeted on Sunday. The jibe, shared largely without context, drew support from prominent conservatives such as right-wing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene — whose account was reinstated with Musk’s decision to end the platform’s COVID-19 misinformation policy last month, and who has been criticized in the past for her own comments mocking the use of gender pronouns — as well as backlash.

    While Musk’s tweet acquired roughly half a million likes in its first few hours online, health experts like Peter Hotez, a vaccine scientist and virology professor, defended Fauci’s work at the forefront of U.S. pandemic mitigation efforts and urged Musk to remove the post.

    “For the record: Dr. Fauci has done nothing wrong, except serve our nation. In the meantime, Mr. Musk should know that 200,000 Americans needlessly lost their lives from Covid due to this kind of antiscience rhetoric and disinformation. Elon, I’m asking you to take down this Tweet,” Hotez wrote. Musk has not responded publicly.

    Rep. Dean Phillips, a Democrat from Minnesota, also called out Musk for targeting Fauci.

    “It’s America. You can select any pronouns you damn well please,” the congressman tweeted. “But Anthony Fauci has likely saved more human lives than any living person in the world. Shame on you.”

    About an hour before posting the tweet about Fauci, Musk shared a meme with a caption that read in part, “Just one more lockdown,” which could be interpreted as an allusion to Fauci’s advocacy for safety mandates that public health specialists, including those at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agreed were helpful in slowing the spread of COVID-19 before vaccines became widely available.

    Since he became one of the leading figures in the fight against the pandemic in early 2020, Fauci was hailed as a hero by some but condemned by others for his recommendations supporting social distancing, the use of face masks and vaccinations to protect against COVID-19. He notably clashed with former President Donald Trump, and Fauci spoke out against rising misinformation and disinformation about mitigation policies and the virus itself. Recalling Trump’s false statements about COVID-19 while in office, Fauci said in a new interview with CNN that he felt he “had to” publicly disagree with the then-president despite his discomfort.

    Dr. Anthony Fauci
    Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testifies at a House budget hearing on Capitol Hill, May 11, 2022. 

    Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images


    “I have such a great deal of respect for the office of the presidency that it just made me very uncomfortable, but I had to do it… because I couldn’t stand there and be complicit in saying hydroxychloroquine works when it doesn’t, you know. ‘Bleach works.’ It doesn’t. ‘The virus is going to go away like magic.’ It’s not,” he said.

    In an interview with CBS News’ Michelle Miller last month, Fauci said he never expected science to become so politicized, making him into “the boogeyman of the far right.” He even received death threats for his work.

    “We are living now in an era, I believe, where there is so much distortion of reality, conspiracy theory and untruths,” he said.


    Dr. Anthony Fauci on what’s next for his career

    07:58

    Twitter has undergone a number of changes since Musk purchased the company this fall and pledged to restore “free speech” on the platform. His changes involved mass layoffs that cut Twitter staff formerly in charge of content moderation, the reinstatement of accounts that were previously banned for violating Twitter’s conduct rules, the release of purported data claiming to reveal the site’s “blacklists,” which he calls the Twitter Files, and the removal of its COVID misinformation policy. 

    Musk’s takeover has triggered the exits of some celebrities and other large accounts from Twitter, amid accusations that he is empowering far-right actors and as research points to a significant spike in hate speech on the platform, specifically targeting marginalized groups, according The New York Times.

    Source link