Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
Dr Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks during a press briefing at the White House, on Nov 22, 2022, in Washington. Image: AP file
national

U.S. COVID adviser Fauci among Japan's spring decorations recipients

45 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

That will upset some.

14 ( +26 / -12 )

Even Fauci can't convince Japan during 2021 that Japan is not an exception to vaccine, while Japanese still insist that vaccine to be with more Japanese population, because Japan is different. At the end Japan just use same exact vaccine. At the cost people are suffering to covid some of them even lead to fatality.

https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14349720

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021/03/b67834a70f99-urgent-65-think-japans-coronavirus-vaccine-rollout-is-slow-kyodo-poll.html

-7 ( +12 / -19 )

Dr. Anthony Fauci served under 7 US presidents. Quite an achievement.

0 ( +20 / -20 )

It is right there in the article. Fauci held the same job starting in 1984, midway through the Reagan era and the AIDS pandemic. Was there a more qualified epidemiologist that Trump should have turned to? Doubtful.

1 ( +17 / -16 )

Good decision!

-2 ( +18 / -20 )

He oversaw the department that funded gain-of-function research in the lab where in all likely hood COVOD-19 escaped from. Questionable choice.

13 ( +29 / -16 )

He oversaw the department that funded gain-of-function research in the lab where in all likely hood COVOD-19 escaped from. Questionable choice.

The US goverment funds gain-of-function research all over the world, there is no research institution working on pathogens that do not do this kind of work in one way or another.

And no, the current scientific consensus is that the pandemic happened in the same way that every other pandemic in history, being introduced from nature from an animal host, there is complete lack of evidence from it escaping from any lab, and plenty of evidence from it coming in the same way of the original SARS virus from an animal market.

Fauci's trajectory is well worth recognition, even if only taking into account the short portion that involved covid.

-15 ( +16 / -31 )

I forget, what exactly did he do wrong to end up in the crosshairs of the American hard right? Was it when he recommended not drinking bleach?

Seems like he was quite a diligent employee for several decades.

-4 ( +21 / -25 )

@proxy--an article in Time points out that for years of Obamas second term, there was a moratorium by the White House Office on Science and Technology Policy on funding gain of function research until 2017, the year Trump took office. Do you think Trump was on the ball on this issue, or more interested in chasing golf balls?

2 ( +9 / -7 )

One could argue that Fauci was partially responsible for the pandemic by supporting and funding labs like the one in Wuhan. Fauci had better enjoy his award while he can, the fallout of the policies he supported is starting to felt.

7 ( +22 / -15 )

He also praised Japan for its handling of the pandemic, saying, "There were many things that Japan did successfully to dampen the effect of the pandemic. We in the United States can learn from Japan and vice versa."

Yep

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

"Clearly the domain has become more contested...China and Russia are both developing capabilities to deny us our access to space," he said. "We want to make sure that space is peaceful and available to all to use."

Lol never misses a chance to condition people's minds

1 ( +6 / -5 )

@weiwei--far too simplistic of a one man blame game. NIAID is under the auspices of NHS, while FDA is another player in virus research work for new medicines, so you should be able to cite whole departments that acted negligently from the 2017 lifting of the federal funding moratorium to late 2019 outbreak.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

One could argue that Fauci was partially responsible for the pandemic by supporting and funding labs like the one in Wuhan.

And one would be completely wrong about that, because both things are completely unrelated in the opinion of the experts, what is not unrelated is the degree the research allowed for the opportune development of vaccines against covid thanks to the full characterization of the viral antigens more likely able to produce protective immunity and in which ways this could be delivered.

He was directly responsible for funding the research that lead to the pandemic

No he was not, imaginary conspiracies that contradict the available evidence only make it clear you don't have any actual argument against his dealing with the pandemic.

I'm not quite sure what America could learn from Japan regarding the pandemic apart from don't do it that way

The experts have written about this extensively.

https://erictopol.substack.com/p/the-marked-contrast-in-pandemic-outcomes

this can help you understanding much better the differences and why the Japanese response is considered very good even with the limitations it had.

-13 ( +8 / -21 )

He also praised Japan for its handling of the pandemic, 

This seems to be his only positive contribution to Japan concerning the pandemic--praising them.

Well done!

Dr Fauci, as well as being an adviser to President Biden, is the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the US government's National Institutes of Health (NIH).

This body did give money to an organisation that collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

https://www.bbc.com/news/57932699

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Give him some recognition.

And he praised Japan's response, which included expert medical advice for the general public to wear masks at a time when the US and other countries were advising against this advice, echoed by the WHO.

-12 ( +6 / -18 )

This body did give money to an organisation that collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

So?

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

And no, the current scientific consensus is that the pandemic happened in the same way that every other pandemic in history, being introduced from nature from an animal host, there is complete lack of evidence from it escaping from any lab, and plenty of evidence from it coming in the same way of the original SARS virus from an animal market.

Completely wrong as the National Laboratory in the US does not follow that theory.

The Department of Energy is kind of powerful in the science field.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Dr. Fauci had to put up with so much bs from Trump and others who had no understanding of what was going on. He learned how uneducated so many in the US are and how easily they could be led astray by an equally uneducated president named Trump. It was cringeworthy watching others try to attack Fauci as though he had any political leanings. The man is a top scientist (the top scientist regarding pandemics etc.) and deserves far more recognition and praise than he got. He was a voice of calm and common sense even when surrounded and harassed by idiotic politicians like Rand Paul who were just trying to stir things up. Glad that at least Japan recognizes Dr. Fauci's work and efforts.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

Trump and Fauci found themselves on the same page touting the vaccines. For all the blustery swamp drainage talk, novice Trump did not know how to confront the most senior figures like Fauci, Pelosi and Biden. Maybe an inter-generational affinity?

And for the third time today, Trump had years of his term prior to Covid-19 to reinstate the Obama-era research funding moratorium if that was so crucial.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

...he continued to provide information based on science, saying "the best way to counter misinformation is to flood the system with correct information."

Not quite. He did admit to lying to the public about the efficacy of masks in 2020 because if the public knew the truth, according to Fauci, people would purchase masks and there would not be enough left for health care givers.

Was he justified in lying to the public? In my opinion, no, because this led to much misgivings and doubts about the COVID-19 information provided by the U.S. and other governments. He should have just told the truth and explained that masks would be limited in distribution for a certain time.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

I liked the man, I do believe he did far more good than bad, but I question some of his claims, some of what he hid and especially the vaccine situation.

Go back and you will know I was a hard supporter of the vaccine.

But today we are finding out a lot of stuff kept from the public.

I find it strange that 2 weeks after my younger brother got his second shot he suffered a severe heart attack and then 2 weeks later and also 2 weeks after I received my second shot I also had a severe heart attack the exact same place as my brother.

Yes there is a hereditary heart defect in nearly all the males in our family but we were told the vaccine was safe, and yes it could easily be a coincident, but at the time even asking if there was a connection for you publicly attacked.

I did still however get my 3rd shot after but now as I read about everything that was withheld I am hesitant to get anymore.

Fauci and others created the atmosphere of " don't ask questions just do as we say" I am sure he meant well but in science and medicine asking questions, peer review are paramount.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

This seems to be his only positive contribution to Japan concerning the pandemic--praising them.

Actions from many countries have had a positive effect on the rest of the international community fight against covid, vaccine development for example is a very positive contribution as well.

There is nothing wrong with funding research projects all over the world, even for the WIV, the only thing those projects have done is to increase the understanding of coronaviruses (and other pathogens) which is part of what helped controlling the pandemic without extra unnecessary deaths.

> And he praised Japan's response, which included expert medical advice for the general public to wear masks at a time when the US and other countries were advising against this advice

That is still as false as every time you repeat the claim, the medical associations of Japan clearly, explicitly recommended masks to be prioritized for hospitals and not for use in the general population.

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20200207/k10012277301000.html

Completely wrong as the National Laboratory in the US does not follow that theory.

A committee says the laboratory doesn't, but not a single scientist have come up to recognize this as a scientific opinion, and not a single piece of evidence have been produced to refute the scientific consensus.

That is precisely the opposite of what a scientific institution does, but completely on the line of political institutions (that are not exactly committed to scientific accuracy). You said before you could get actual scientific authorities (as in people with names and degrees) to give scientific support for the theory, you have yet to do it.

Not quite. He did admit to lying to the public about the efficacy of masks in 2020 because if the public knew the truth, according to Fauci, people would purchase masks and there would not be enough left for health care givers.

People keep making this claim only to become completely silent when asked for a source for it, misrepresenting a completely different situation.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

@virusrex There is actually not a single piece of evidence that it originated in nature, not a bit.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the origins of COVID-19

Can you find any institution of science and medicine that supports anything else than the introduction being done naturally is the hugely more likely explanation (as in declarations where people give their name and evidence to support that supposedly different explanation)?

If you can't that is because there is a clear consensus in science, just not the one you want to push.

The growing consensus that it leaked at least once from the research funded by Fauci in Wuhan.

Can you then of course link to a few universities, international organisms, epidemiology laboratories, etc that say so?

Again, when you can't find examples of what you claim is the consensus that means there may be one, just the opposite of the one you claim.

There is actually not a single piece of evidence that it originated in nature, not a bit.

Ignoring the evidence is not an argument to prove it does not exist, it just proves you don't know something necessary to have a valid opinion about the topic.

Meanwhile actual scientific institutions base their conclusions on scientific data such as the one published in recognized journals that have not been refuted.

For example:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337

Any of the supposed institutes saying the lab leak is the origin that have discussed the evidence included in these articles?

-8 ( +8 / -16 )

@virusrex Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus who runs the WHO has called for a new investigation, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study."

6 ( +13 / -7 )

"COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up: Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak"

https://oversight.house.gov/release/covid-origins-hearing-wrap-up-facts-science-evidence-point-to-a-wuhan-lab-leak%EF%BF%BC/

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus who runs the WHO has called for a new investigation, saying: "All hypotheses remain open and require further study."

And you understand this is completely different from what you claimed what the consensus right? A new investigation is completely scientific, claiming an explanation that runs contrary to the available evidence is the "new consensus" is still false.

"COVID Origins Hearing Wrap Up: Facts, Science, Evidence Point to a Wuhan Lab Leak"

An so, not a single scientist name, not even one piece of evidence, just a committee claiming a scientific institution supports a claim without that actually happening.

Also, zero discussion of the evidence that proves the natural origin, as the examples provided that you said didn't exist just because you ignored them.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

In Japan, there were no compulsory vaccinations.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

What Japan did right was not having vaccine passbooks and having a population with a much lower obesity rate. Life expectancy is 6 years longer in Japan than the US (lower than Cuba) as the population is much healthier to begin with which would translate into fewer deaths.

Americans need to eat healthier and go for a walk.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

@virusrex There is not a stich of evidence that it was a natural origin, not a stitch. It is just a theory.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

What Japan did right was not having vaccine passbooks and having a population with a much lower obesity rate. Life expectancy is 6 years longer in Japan than the US (lower than Cuba) as the population is much healthier to begin with which would translate into fewer deaths.

No, that is not how the experts have explained the differences, an article written by an expert that contradicts you has already been provided.

https://erictopol.substack.com/p/the-marked-contrast-in-pandemic-outcomes

Trying to ignore the evidence and arguments provided so you don't have to recognize being proved wrong is not rational or productive. If you can't counterargument an expert the logical thing is to accept he is right, even if that makes you wrong.

 There is not a stich of evidence that it was a natural origin, not a stitch. It is just a theory.

That is what a theory means, an explanation of how something happened, there is plenty of evidence even if you only consider the two references already given to you.

Again, just pretending that evidence don't exist only proves you are being irrational and biased, and have no argument to contradict the experts proving your claims are wrong.

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

@virusrex You do understand that when the head of the WHO says "All hypotheses remain open" that doesn't not back up your claim that there is a consensus, that my friend is the opposite of a "consensus."

6 ( +11 / -5 )

@virusrex You do understand that when the head of the WHO says "All hypotheses remain open" that doesn't not back up your claim that there is a consensus

No, that is not what it means, the consensus is clear (since you have not yet found a valid scientific source to contradict it) "keeping all hypothesis open" just mean that new evidence is welcome and that the consensus could change according to it, but without that evidence then it remains as it is right now, after all the evidence available is extremely strong, even if you personally want to remain in denial and just claim it does not exist even when clearly referenced in the comments.

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

Consensus, even if there is one, is not science. It's politics.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Science only requires results that are reproducible and verifiable

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Consensus, even if there is one, is not science. It's politics.

That is not correct, consensus IS based on reproductive results that keep pointing to the same conclusion, there is no "power" or "politics" involved in the clear natural origin, just evidence that points to it without contradiction. If the evidence were pointing all over the place politics would make sure there was no consensus because people would benefit from making that clearly evident.

your substack link brushes off differences in co-morbidities like obesity and diabetes without any discussion. Not very "scientific" coming from an "expert."

The discussion is done without problem, again trying to misrepresent something as not existing because it contradicts your view is not logical, the same is done for other factos in the opposite direction like the average age of the population, that would make the Japanese situation much worse, except that it did not happen all included in the discussion of the source.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

That is not correct, consensus IS based on reproductive results

If it is verifiable no need to vote on things lol. Only one investigator is needed.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Why would all scientists on a particular field waste their energy on a verifiable scientific fact?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

If it is verifiable no need to vote on things lol. Only one investigator is needed.

You don't really understand what scientific consensus means, there is no "voting" just many scientists examining the same evidence and reaching the same conclusion, so much that the field simply recognize this is what the best available science leads to in respect to something.

Microbial theory is the consensus explanation for infection, that is not because doctors "vote" to keep it that way but because that is the only explanation that keeps making sense according to what is being observed. The natural origin of covid is the same, it fits the evidence, it is not contradictory so professionals keep considering the most likely explanation by much. This is now so common (as in what every institution says about it) that is considered a consensus.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

A so called consensus is fabricated only precisely on cases that cannot be proven

7 ( +10 / -3 )

And no, the current scientific consensus is that the pandemic happened in the same way that every other pandemic in history

Good to know. Mystery solved. Isn't science great?

9 ( +9 / -0 )

A so called consensus is fabricated only precisely on cases that cannot be proven

So you think the microbial theory of infection is fabricated and can't be proven? or the role of the heart in the circulation of blood? because both are examples of scientific consensus.

There are many sources clearly explaining what scientific consensus actually is

https://www.intelligentspeculation.com/blog/the-scientific-consensus

there is no point in insisting on a complete misunderstanding that can be easily corrected.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites