Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Unofficial Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, MD thread.


NorvilleBarnes

Recommended Posts

Everyone knows you always draft a kicker in the 1st round.  All these people taking RBs and WRs in the 1st round are just blind sheep.  When Dodds says not to draft a kicker in the 1st round he is just lying to you, paid off by BIG-FOOTBALL.  He doesn't know what he's talking about.  I'm hearing lots of people drafting kickers in the 1st round and then winning their leagues.  Saw a guy on youtube saying the win percentage of teams that draft kickers in the first round is 125%.  They actually win more games than they play.  It's crazy that big football is hiding this from us, they are costing millions of people championships just to line their pockets and they don't even care.  Don't be a sheep.  Draft a kicker in the 1st round.  Then trade your 2nd-8th round picks to get two extra first round picks and draft two more kickers.  Then write the kickers names down on a bottle of laundry detergent and drink the laundry detergent.  That will get the kicker into your mitochondria which will increase the chemical energy of your fantasy team.

 

If millions of people came in here and gave Dodds that kind of advice about fantasy football, he'd probably feel about like Fauci feels these days.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

He loves the spotlight 

 

You really have to admire his ability to slow play things though.  I mean, he really snowed all of us by waiting until he was 78 years old and at a time when 99.9% of the country had no clue who he was to then insert himself in the national debate about a global pandemic.  Talk about stealing the spotlight.  Thankfully a bunch of hacks on the internet who have no clue what they are talking about can put this guy in his place -  well done guys!

Awards and honors

  • 1979: Arthur S. Flemming Award[102]
  • 1993: Honorary Doctor of Science, Bates College[103]
  • 1995: Ernst Jung Prize (shared with Samuel A. Wells, Jr.)[104]
  • 1995: Honorary Doctor of Science, Duke University[105]
  • 1996: Honorary Doctor of Science, Colgate University[106]
  • 1999: Honorary Doctor of Public Service, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania[107]
  • 2002: Albany Medical Center Prize[108]
  • 2003: American Academy of Achievement's Golden Plate Award[109]
  • 2005: National Medal of Science[110]
  • 2005: American Association of Immunologists Lifetime Achievement Award[111]
  • 2007: Mary Woodard Lasker Public Service Award[112]
  • 2007: George M. Kober Medal, Association of American Physicians[6]
  • 2008: Presidential Medal of Freedom[109]
  • 2013: UCSF medal[113]
  • 2013: Robert Koch Gold Medal[114]
  • 2013: Prince Mahidol Award[115]
  • 2015: Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, Johns Hopkins University[116][117]
  • 2015: Honorary Doctor of Public Service, The George Washington University[118][119]
  • 2016: John Dirks Canada Gairdner Global Health Award[120]
  • 2018: Honorary Doctor of Science, commencement speaker, American University[121]
  • 2018: Honorary Doctor of Science, Boston University[122]
  • 2020: Federal Employee of the Year[123]
  • 2020: Presidential Citation for Exemplary Leadership, National Academy of Medicine[124]
  • 2020: Ripple of Hope Award from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights[125]
  • 2020: TIME Magazine's Guardian of the Year, along with the frontline health workers, Assa Traoré, Porche Bennett-Bey, and racial justice organizers.[126]
  • 2020: Harris Dean's Award[127]
  • 2020: Knight of the Grand Cross - Order of Merit of the Italian Republic[128]
  • 2021: Public Welfare Medal of the National Academy of Sciences[129]
  • 2021: Dan David Prize[130]
  • 2021: President's Medal of The George Washington University[131][132]
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

 

You really have to admire his ability to slow play things though.  I mean, he really snowed all of us by waiting until he was 78 years old and at a time when 99.9% of the country had no clue who he was to then insert himself in the national debate about a global pandemic.  Talk about stealing the spotlight.  Thankfully a bunch of hacks on the internet who have no clue what they are talking about can put this guy in his place -  well done guys!

Awards and honors

  • 1979: Arthur S. Flemming Award[102]
  • 1993: Honorary Doctor of Science, Bates College[103]
  • 1995: Ernst Jung Prize (shared with Samuel A. Wells, Jr.)[104]
  • 1995: Honorary Doctor of Science, Duke University[105]
  • 1996: Honorary Doctor of Science, Colgate University[106]
  • 1999: Honorary Doctor of Public Service, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania[107]
  • 2002: Albany Medical Center Prize[108]
  • 2003: American Academy of Achievement's Golden Plate Award[109]
  • 2005: National Medal of Science[110]
  • 2005: American Association of Immunologists Lifetime Achievement Award[111]
  • 2007: Mary Woodard Lasker Public Service Award[112]
  • 2007: George M. Kober Medal, Association of American Physicians[6]
  • 2008: Presidential Medal of Freedom[109]
  • 2013: UCSF medal[113]
  • 2013: Robert Koch Gold Medal[114]
  • 2013: Prince Mahidol Award[115]
  • 2015: Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, Johns Hopkins University[116][117]
  • 2015: Honorary Doctor of Public Service, The George Washington University[118][119]
  • 2016: John Dirks Canada Gairdner Global Health Award[120]
  • 2018: Honorary Doctor of Science, commencement speaker, American University[121]
  • 2018: Honorary Doctor of Science, Boston University[122]
  • 2020: Federal Employee of the Year[123]
  • 2020: Presidential Citation for Exemplary Leadership, National Academy of Medicine[124]
  • 2020: Ripple of Hope Award from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights[125]
  • 2020: TIME Magazine's Guardian of the Year, along with the frontline health workers, Assa Traoré, Porche Bennett-Bey, and racial justice organizers.[126]
  • 2020: Harris Dean's Award[127]
  • 2020: Knight of the Grand Cross - Order of Merit of the Italian Republic[128]
  • 2021: Public Welfare Medal of the National Academy of Sciences[129]
  • 2021: Dan David Prize[130]
  • 2021: President's Medal of The George Washington University[131][132]

:shrug:

the codger loves to talk 

Dr. Anthony Fauci’s 400+ Media Events Cost Taxpayers During The Pandemic

Adam Andrzejewski07:58am EDT

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 12: National Institute Of [+]

Getty Images

More From Forbes

New information has emerged casting doubt about whether Dr. Anthony Fauci has been serving the public interest or his own personal interests since the Covid-19 pandemic began. 

When did the doctor have time to follow the science?

Since January 1, 2020, Dr. Fauci participated in 354 television, radio, podcast, and online interviews, including lectures, panel discussions, speeches, and press conferences. Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com compiled a database from the online archive posted at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). 

Not included in the government’s media disclosures were 1) Dr. Fauci’s book deal and forthcoming documentary film with National Geographic, 2) many of the early pandemic press conferences with Donald Trump, and 3) the current twice-per-week conferences with Joe Biden’s Covid-19 task force.

Taxpayers paid a hefty sum for Dr.  Fauci’s media appearances. 

In January, our investigation published at Forbes found Dr. Fauci’s salary in 2019 was $417,608. In 2020, Dr. Fauci earned $434,000 with estimated earnings of $650,000 since the pandemic hit. Dr. Fauci out-earned all 4.3 million federal employees, including four-star generals and the president. 

Critics have questioned why Dr. Fauci participated in so many interviews for such a long time when his position did not primarily involve public affairs.

Since 1913, the Gillett Amendment expressly limits the government’s interaction with the public by barring the “publicity man” or “propagandist,” i.e. taxpayer dollars must be used to inform the public, and not to manufacture public opinion. “Appropriated funds may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose,” the law states. 

Did Dr. Fauci blur the lines between publicity, propaganda, public affairs, and his positions as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President?

It’s unclear why Dr. Fauci needed to go on a media tour when federal health agencies already employ public relations experts. We reached out to Dr. Fauci for comment and will update the piece if he responds. 

In fact, the three agencies involved in pandemic response—National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers For Disease Control (CDC), and the Food And Drug Administration (FDA)—already employ 162 public affairs officers for $20 million in yearly payroll costs. On average, each public affairs officer earned $128,000 in salary alone.

Here are the salary costs broken out by agency for their public affairs officer positions:

NIH employed 80 public affairs officers for $10.3 million. 

CDC employed 35 public affairs officers for $4.6 million.

FDA employed 46 public affairs officers for $5.6 million. 

Roughly $30 million in cash compensation has already been paid out by these three agencies to public affairs officers since the pandemic became known (January 1, 2020 through the current date).

Dr. Fauci, however, has taken the lead role in pandemic-related public outreach efforts for the last 18 months. American taxpayers might wonder why they’re footing the bill for Dr. Fauci’s salary when they’re already paying for a small army of public affairs professionals. 

Furthermore, since the release of Dr. Fauci’s emails by The Washington Post and BuzzFeed, material questions have emerged as to whether the doctor misled the public during his media interviews. 

Last week, National Geographic, Amazon AMZN +1.3%, and other booksellers removed a pre-sale option to purchase Dr. Fauci’s book from their websites after his contradictory emails became public. 

For example, a National Geographic interview with Dr. Fauci from May 2020 is still posted on the outlet’s website entitled, “No Scientific Evidence The Coronavirus Was Made In A Chinese Lab.” However, Dr. Fauci recently admitted further investigation is necessary and his emails show he was alerted to the lab-leak theory as early as February 2020. 

According to The New York Times NYT-0.4%, Fauci is not receiving royalties or payments from the book or documentary with National Geographic.

Further Reading

Dr. Anthony Fauci media database at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, here.

Dr. Anthony Fauci Is The Highest Paid Public Employee In The Entire Federal Government, here.

A Call To Repeal The Gillett Amendment, here.

National Geographic, No Scientific Evidence The Coronavirus Was Made In A Chinese Lab, here.

NOTE: Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for Anthony Fauci’s employment contract (and other job related documents) in January 2021. Despite repeated attempts, we have yet to receive production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

He pitches worse than most bad little league players

"Tony should stop wearing the Washington Nationals' Mask for two reasons. Number one, it is not up to the high standards that he should be exposing," Trump tweeted. "Number two, it keeps reminding me that Tony threw out perhaps the worst first pitch in the history of Baseball!"
:lol:

 

  • Laughing 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

 

You really have to admire his ability to slow play things though.  I mean, he really snowed all of us by waiting until he was 78 years old and at a time when 99.9% of the country had no clue who he was to then insert himself in the national debate about a global pandemic.  Talk about stealing the spotlight.  Thankfully a bunch of hacks on the internet who have no clue what they are talking about can put this guy in his place -  well done guys!

Awards and honors

  • 1979: Arthur S. Flemming Award[102]
  • 1993: Honorary Doctor of Science, Bates College[103]
  • 1995: Ernst Jung Prize (shared with Samuel A. Wells, Jr.)[104]
  • 1995: Honorary Doctor of Science, Duke University[105]
  • 1996: Honorary Doctor of Science, Colgate University[106]
  • 1999: Honorary Doctor of Public Service, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania[107]
  • 2002: Albany Medical Center Prize[108]
  • 2003: American Academy of Achievement's Golden Plate Award[109]
  • 2005: National Medal of Science[110]
  • 2005: American Association of Immunologists Lifetime Achievement Award[111]
  • 2007: Mary Woodard Lasker Public Service Award[112]
  • 2007: George M. Kober Medal, Association of American Physicians[6]
  • 2008: Presidential Medal of Freedom[109]
  • 2013: UCSF medal[113]
  • 2013: Robert Koch Gold Medal[114]
  • 2013: Prince Mahidol Award[115]
  • 2015: Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, Johns Hopkins University[116][117]
  • 2015: Honorary Doctor of Public Service, The George Washington University[118][119]
  • 2016: John Dirks Canada Gairdner Global Health Award[120]
  • 2018: Honorary Doctor of Science, commencement speaker, American University[121]
  • 2018: Honorary Doctor of Science, Boston University[122]
  • 2020: Federal Employee of the Year[123]
  • 2020: Presidential Citation for Exemplary Leadership, National Academy of Medicine[124]
  • 2020: Ripple of Hope Award from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights[125]
  • 2020: TIME Magazine's Guardian of the Year, along with the frontline health workers, Assa Traoré, Porche Bennett-Bey, and racial justice organizers.[126]
  • 2020: Harris Dean's Award[127]
  • 2020: Knight of the Grand Cross - Order of Merit of the Italian Republic[128]
  • 2021: Public Welfare Medal of the National Academy of Sciences[129]
  • 2021: Dan David Prize[130]
  • 2021: President's Medal of The George Washington University[131][132]

yeah, well, if he was so smart, why did he never take a cushy job at Big Pharma?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Everyone still likes this guy after we find out his organization funded gain of function at the Wuhan Lab and the virus likely escaped from the lab? 

Wait, so doesn't that kill Trumps "China (Ch pronounced as "J") will have to pay reparations to US since this is their fault..."   and his "Kung Flu" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Everyone still likes this guy after we find out his organization funded gain of function at the Wuhan Lab and the virus likely escaped from the lab? 

The gain of function angle is a worthy debate I think (not if it was being funded by him but rather if it’s a worthwhile practice).  But the subsequent cover up and lying is dirty to say the least.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Everyone still likes this guy after we find out his organization funded gain of function at the Wuhan Lab and the virus likely escaped from the lab? 


Yes.  And it’s weird you call NIH his organization like he founded it.  He runs it and I assume manages where the money goes and does hold responsibility for that.  I’m not convinced either side has sufficiently answered the whole gain of function argument.

As for the lab leak - if/when it’s proven that it came from the lab then there’s a ton of answering Fauci and others would need to do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Everyone still likes this guy after we find out his organization funded gain of function at the Wuhan Lab and the virus likely escaped from the lab? 

The thing is that anybody who paid attention to this story knew that he was lying* to congress at the same time that he was testifying.  I posted about it that day, and I'm just a layman who's not any more plugged into the NIH than anybody else.  I think if it was somebody other than Rand Paul blowing the whistle, maybe it would have gotten more traction, but the fact is that Paul was basically right and Fauci was lying through his teeth.  

Also, it was a really dumb thing to lie about.  These sorts of records were always come to out at some point.  It would have made a lot more sense for Fauci to conceded that yes, the NIH did fund research, including GOF research, either directly or indirectly at WIV and just forthrightly explain why.  It's not as if the NIH is the only research body to do so or that they didn't have good scientific reasons for doing so.  In hindsight, that was obviously an error of course.

 

 

* I put a little asterisk by "lying" because technically it depends on exactly what you mean by "gain of function" research.  People like Fauci like to get extremely pedantic over that sort of thing, and he would probably argue that his statements to congress were technically accurate under some non-standard-English reading of the transcript.  But he knew that he was being dishonest at the time, so I think "lying" is the correct term.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

The gain of function angle is a worthy debate I think (not if it was being funded by him but rather if it’s a worthwhile practice).  But the subsequent cover up and lying is dirty to say the least.  

I don't think a Lab in China previously cited for safety violations would be my number 1 choice.  This is the downside to those risks.  But I do agree there may be something valuable in this type of research. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jplvr said:


Two things jump out about this video that seem a little disingenuous - making it sound like that number of research projects is unusual.  I don’t know if it is or not but they need to have some kind of comparison as the vast majority of us have no clue.  Hard to take the animal rights guy word for anything because unfortunately those guys are frequently over the top and want zero animal testing.  I think the whole point of having the NIH is to study these things.  If there are animal abuses then that’s a problem and they should be held accountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Max Power said:

I don't think a Lab in China previously cited for safety violations would be my number 1 choice.  This is the downside to those risks.  But I do agree there may be something valuable in this type of research. 

Wholeheartedly agree.  The list of issues here is long no doubt about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The thing is that anybody who paid attention to this story knew that he was lying* to congress at the same time that he was testifying.  I posted about it that day, and I'm just a layman who's not any more plugged into the NIH than anybody else.  I think if it was somebody other than Rand Paul blowing the whistle, maybe it would have gotten more traction, but the fact is that Paul was basically right and Fauci was lying through his teeth.  

* I put a little asterisk by "lying" because technically it depends on exactly what you mean by "gain of function" research.  People like Fauci like to get extremely pedantic over that sort of thing, and he would probably argue that his statements to congress were technically accurate under some non-standard-English reading of the transcript.  But he knew that he was being dishonest at the time, so I think "lying" is the correct term.


I’m not willing to go that far without more information - and we may never get it.  If there’s truly an argument here about gain of function then normally I would say let’s have the smart guys sit in a room and figure it out. But what I’ve read sounds like they did that and it’s still murky.  Where I would agree is that Fauci should have laid all of that out there for consumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The thing is that anybody who paid attention to this story knew that he was lying* to congress at the same time that he was testifying.  I posted about it that day, and I'm just a layman who's not any more plugged into the NIH than anybody else.  I think if it was somebody other than Rand Paul blowing the whistle, maybe it would have gotten more traction, but the fact is that Paul was basically right and Fauci was lying through his teeth.  

 

 

* I put a little asterisk by "lying" because technically it depends on exactly what you mean by "gain of function" research.  People like Fauci like to get extremely pedantic over that sort of thing, and he would probably argue that his statements to congress were technically accurate under some non-standard-English reading of the transcript.  But he knew that he was being dishonest at the time, so I think "lying" is the correct term.

Unfortunately it’s the same game that has been played likely from the first time someone testified in front of congress.  Word games and technicalities.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:


Yes.  And it’s weird you call NIH his organization like he founded it.  He runs it and I assume manages where the money goes and does hold responsibility for that.  I’m not convinced either side has sufficiently answered the whole gain of function argument.

As for the lab leak - if/when it’s proven that it came from the lab then there’s a ton of answering Fauci and others would need to do.

I'll be more cognizant of my wordings.  But what are your concerns with the gain of function research questions? 

The intelligence agencies didn't come to a conclusion about the lab leak.  But we can almost rule out the naturally occurring theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:


I’m not willing to go that far without more information - and we may never get it.  If there’s truly an argument here about gain of function then normally I would say let’s have the smart guys sit in a room and figure it out. But what I’ve read sounds like they did that and it’s still murky.  Where I would agree is that Fauci should have laid all of that out there for consumption.

Have you read the Intercept report from today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I’ll be honest - my biggest with all of the Fauci discussion is epitomized in the location of this thread.  The pandemic and Fauci should not be a political thing - it’s a health and science item.  Injecting politics in to it all those months ago has contributed to some people dying.  Any mistake made during the pandemic by this guy and others should have nothing to do with politics.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I'll be more cognizant of my wordings.  But what are your concerns with the gain of function research questions? 

The intelligence agencies didn't come to a conclusion about the lab leak.  But we can almost rule out the naturally occurring theory. 


Not a concern I have - just based on my previous reading it sounded like there was a disagreement on whether it was or wasn’t.  I’m fine if someone wants to level that semantics, both in the literal and figurative sense.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, killface said:

Bunch of football fans slagging a guy that is in the top of his field with decades of education and research

If that doesn't sum up the internet, I don't know what does

Bunch of football guys on the internet aren't recommending and funding research that directly leads to a global pandemic either. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:


Two things jump out about this video that seem a little disingenuous - making it sound like that number of research projects is unusual.  I don’t know if it is or not but they need to have some kind of comparison as the vast majority of us have no clue.  Hard to take the animal rights guy word for anything because unfortunately those guys are frequently over the top and want zero animal testing.  I think the whole point of having the NIH is to study these things.  If there are animal abuses then that’s a problem and they should be held accountable.

I really don't care about the number. Just one of them is sort of important at the moment.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

And I’ll be honest - my biggest with all of the Fauci discussion is epitomized in the location of this thread.  The pandemic and Fauci should not be a political thing - it’s a health and science item.  Injecting politics in to it all those months ago has contributed to some people dying.  Any mistake made during the pandemic by this guy and others should have nothing to do with politics.

Where money is involved politics are soon to follow.  And as he oversees the money it’s inevitable the politics come back to him.  

I’m basically pro Fauci but he is clearly not faultless and his involvement with the Wuhan lab and subsequent coverup (which is honestly undeniable at this point to anyone looking at this objectively) are deserving of some harsh criticism.  

Edited by dkp993
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Where money is involved politics are soon to follow.  I’m basically pro Fauci but he is clearly not faultless and his involvement with the Wuhan lab and subsequent coverup (which is honestly undeniable at this point to anyone looking at this objectively) are deserving of some harsh criticism.  

how does one trust him at this point?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kodycutter said:

how does one trust him at this point?  

Great question. That’s the problem when you torpedo your credibility by not facing down your mistakes and owning them.  As they say, the coverup is often worse then the crime.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Where money is involved politics are soon to follow.  And as he oversees the money it’s inevitable the politics come back to him.  

I’m basically pro Fauci but he is clearly not faultless and his involvement with the Wuhan lab and subsequent coverup (which is honestly undeniable at this point to anyone looking at this objectively) are deserving of some harsh criticism.  


And I don’t like the debate/semantics about gain of function.  That definitely seems to be dangerous.  I have no clue whether any of this research should be done but at a minimum we should try and be totally transparent if/when it is and I would agree that doesn’t appear as though it has happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jplvr said:

I really don't care about the number. Just one of them is sort of important at the moment.


Agree - It just came across as sensational when nothing they said really was that bad.  I mean, if they really did cause a global pandemic then that is scary enough by itself - you don’t need to sensationalize it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:


And I don’t like the debate/semantics about gain of function.  That definitely seems to be dangerous.  I have no clue whether any of this research should be done but at a minimum we should try and be totally transparent if/when it is and I would agree that doesn’t appear as though it has happened.

Agreed. I’m certainly not an expert on the viability of GoF and as I researched the pros/cons there are compelling arguments on both sides.  But the stench rising from what happened in Wuhan both before and after is rancid and dangerous. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...