Dr. Anthony Fauci's reputation has long polarized public opinion. Whereas some view him as a scientific beacon guiding the world through a pandemic, others criticize his perceived inconsistency, advocacy for extreme policies, and support for ethically questionable research.
Fauci's recent article in Clinical Infectious Diseases, subtitled "Shared Lessons from Two Pandemics," further deepens the divide. Despite being framed as a "viewpoint" piece, the article raises serious concerns about Fauci's injection of political bias and selective presentation of facts. By leveraging the credibility of a respected medical journal, Fauci transforms a platform intended for impartial scientific discourse into a tool for advancing narratives that align with his political perspective. This undermines trust in the objectivity of scientific publications and blurs the line between evidence-based guidance and personal ideology. Two of Fauci's eight "lessons" stand out as particularly disconcerting.
One of Fauci's key lessons asserts, "With pandemics, political leadership at the highest level is critical." Though superficially uncontroversial, his accompanying analysis betrays a palpable bias against President Trump, supported by dubious citations. Fauci claims that Trump "frequently minimized the seriousness of the pandemic," citing a biased CNN article that paints a one-dimensional narrative by tracking Trump statements suggesting that COVID-19 would disappear.
A closer look at some of the quoted remarks reveals a more complex picture. For example, on March 10, 2020, CNN highlights Trump saying, "It will go away. Just stay calm. It will go away." Although this quote implies dismissal, the same press conference includes Trump saying, "With all of that being said, we're taking this unbelievably seriously, and I think we're doing a really good job. And, again, the task force ... has been fantastic."
Similarly, on July 21, 2020, CNN quotes Trump as saying, "Well, the virus will disappear. It will disappear." In that same press briefing, Trump also remarked, "And then this came in, and the plague -- I call it the 'plague' -- the plague came in. A terrible thing. Should've been stopped. Wasn't stopped. It came in. We had to shut things down to save potentially millions of lives. We did that." Fauci omits the fuller context, instead relying on CNN's selective excerpts to reinforce his biased narrative of negligence.
Fauci's most egregious claim, however, is that Trump endorsed "unproven and potentially dangerous substances for COVID-19 prevention and treatment such as bleach injections, the antimalarial hydroxychloroquine, and the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin." Fauci supports this assertion by citing his personal memoir and a strange journal article analyzing Trump's press statements and their correlation with internet searches of certain products. Neither source substantiates the inflammatory claim of endorsing "bleach injections."
In reality, Trump's remarks stemmed from a moment of brainstorming during a press conference on April 23, 2020 where scientific advisers discussed disinfectants' ability to kill viruses on surfaces. Trump speculated, "And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. ... So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors. ... But it sounds -- it sounds interesting to me." Yes, it does sound crude on its face, but so does the injection of radioactivity into the human body. Yet scientific progress has led to the injection of radioactive isotopes for both biomedical diagnostic testing and therapeutics.
This was obviously not a call for citizens to inject bleach, but the biased media immediately followed up for clarification by asking, "The President mentioned the idea of cleaners, like bleach and isopropyl alcohol you mentioned. There's no scenario that that could be injected into a person, is there?" Trump responded: "It wouldn't be through injection. We're talking about ... sterilization of an area." Fauci's willingness to propagate this false narrative in a medical journal is dishonest and undermines his credibility as a scientist.
Fauci also dismisses hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as dangerous without acknowledging their broader context and the fact that as FDA-approved drugs, their safety profile is known. He ignores studies that show some benefit toward COVID-19 for hydroxychloroquine. He also fails to mention that ivermectin is deemed safe enough for the CDC to recommend it for all U.S.-bound refugees, even without being diagnosed with a parasite infection. These omissions reflect a selective narrative designed to delegitimize treatments that did not align with Fauci's preferred messaging.
Another troubling lesson in Fauci's article is his assertion that "misinformation and disinformation are universal enemies of pandemic control." Fauci makes his case to "support efforts by social scientists and others to develop strategies to fight false and manipulated information." Fauci asserts himself as the arbiter of truth; all information will need to pass through his filter before dissemination. But there are many examples of narratives that media and government label as misinformation that are later found to have been true.
In his 2024 article, Fauci includes the narrative that "the abundant evidence from top evolutionary virologists and leading scientists in other fields strongly suggests that the virus jumped species from an animal reservoir to humans in the Huanan market in Wuhan, China." He provides three citations from 2021-2022. In 2024, the credibility of the lab leak theory has surpassed this natural species jump theory, but this did not even warrant a mention from Fauci.
The first COVID-19 cases were indeed tracked to a market in Wuhan, China, just a 12-mile drive from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where they were working on coronaviruses. Is this a coincidence? I point you to John Stewart's thoughtful perspective on this, but I will add here some additional facts to drive the point home.
The original SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19 virus) genetic sequence was most similar to a bat betacoronavirus sequence submitted by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. A major difference between these two viruses is that SARS-CoV-2 has a furin-cleavage site introduced into its spike protein. A research scientist at the Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology in Wuhan published a study that reported engineering a furin-cleavage site in a pig coronavirus, resulting in "expanding the tropism of the virus." That means making it infectious toward a wider variety of cell types.
The landmasses of the Earth cover approximately 57 million square miles, yet the pandemic's epicenter was within 18 miles of two laboratories conducting relevant coronavirus research. One housed the most similar known virus on the planet, and the other conducted gain-of-function experiments that mirror the key features of the COVID-19 virus. Fauci's unwillingness to acknowledge this extraordinary coincidence further undermines his credibility.
Conclusion
Fauci's use of a scientific journal to advance politically charged narratives erodes trust in both science and public health leadership. His selective citation, misrepresentation of facts, and suppression of alternative perspectives should concern anyone who values evidence-based discourse. Science must remain an arena for evidence and inquiry, not a platform for advancing biased narratives.
Fauci's call to "debunk misinformation" may already be influencing A.I. platforms, subtly shaping what is deemed acceptable to depict or discuss. For example, my attempt to create an A.I.-generated image illustrating improper mask-wearing (a common sight during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic) revealed an intriguing limitation. One A.I. tool produced only images of properly worn masks, while another claimed that the request violated content guidelines. Are we content with a society that demands adherence to Faucian content guidelines?