Saturday, February 29, 2020

The Revolution Will Be Dramatized


Catching Fire came out November 2013.
Mockingjay: Part I came out November 2014.
In between, Mike Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, and the Ferguson Uprising took place.
This essay is about what it was like to live in an America that can rapturously and enthusiastically consume and cosplay revolution, and can look on real world resistance with disdain.
The first installment in the Hunger Games cinematic franchise was compelling, to be sure, but it was admittedly a bit underwhelming. For a story about a nation that punishes its citizens by dividing them into districts and then pitting their children against each other in a televised battle to the death, the first movie seemed to intentionally shy away from capturing the heinous nature of it all. It was dust-bowl bleary, certainly, but Katniss’ home in District 12 felt like stylized, not institutionalized, poverty. Once in the actual arena, it even felt a bit bright and breezy, portraying fellow competitors—you know, other children who were fighting to the death—as Katniss’ antagonists much of the time, and showing the Capitol—the seat of power responsible for all this—in short, visually captivating bursts, usually when Haymitch was soliciting donors to send Katniss gifts when she put on a good show.
Where the novel had been arresting, the first film went to great lengths to be another world, giving me pretty constant reprieves from the supposed oppressive injustice of Panem.
Catching Fire was the second novel in the Hunger Games trilogy, and it ground almost to a complete halt for me. Bluntly, Katniss performs a long, laborious, completely uncharacteristic wallowing act that felt very much like a middle book trying to rustle up enough story to justify the fact that there are three books. Because the hard part is apparently not being poor, oppressed, and living in a world where you’re too disconnected from your fellow countrypeople to effectively fight back. The hard part is having to say you’re in love with Peeta. She could not get into it, and I, in turn, could not get into that.
But the film adaptation. We bookish types like to bandy around mantras like “the book was better,” as though it’s a golden rule, like no film has ever improved on its source material. That’s just not true. I personally have several examples of movies that are better/more effective/more compelling than the novels that birthed them, and that’s not even speaking to adaptations that are simply as good. Catching Fire, the movie, reined in Katniss’s pity party and apparent willingness to jeopardize the family she went into the arena to save in the first place, and it made the games themselves feel real.
Importantly, it made the world in which the games could exist feel real. It was darker, and more violent… and to be honest, I was kind of amazed at how well received it was. It was, after all, about a revolution in the making. It was about a police state, in which there were no devil’s advocates arguing that there might be a few bad apples spoiling the bunch, or a few good guys mistakenly on the wrong side. There was an oppressive, dehumanizing, antagonizing, intensely penalizing power majority that was altogether wrong—and America celebrated it.
Three finger salutes went up all over the country.
Not only was it a hit, Catching Fire was praised for disallowing the viewer any distance from the violence. The District 11 execution that marks the first bloodshed in the film is heralded for being the focus of a steady frame—as opposed to the shaky cam employed in the first movie—and for being a moment during which Katniss was, as one review mentioned, “made to fully realize the capability for cruelty inherent in the government of Panem.” Yes, a set of doors closed before the bullet left the chamber—it’s PG-13, friends—but the effect was palpable. The viewer was spared neither that this was a full-scale terror, nor the immutable truth of the wrongness of military brutality being used against civilians.
That execution of the elderly Black man in that scene is meant to be impactful, but it knocked the wind out of me. It reminded me that in the real world, in real life, in my country, we have been terrorized by the repeated slaying of Black men, women, and children, at the hands of law enforcement. That in the film he was pulled from a crowd and made to kneel before being shot in the head did not feel fictionalized enough. It did not feel extreme or hyperbolic when as a child I’d seen footage of four cops beating a man until he was disfigured and required mobility aids. A country that could see that, acquit the perpetrators, and then demonize the community’s response, was telling you that time does not heal institutional and intentional wounds. It might infantilize you with admonishments to leave the past behind, but there is a straight line between chattel slavery and Jim Crow and refusal of civil liberties and lynchings and overcriminalization and economic disenfranchisement and cultural erasure and sustained gaslighting and mocking the very concept of reparations. And so while someone divorced from the reality of incessant oppression can split hairs and argue semantics, for me, there was nothing sensational about that execution. That my country could be riveted by Catching Fire’s unapologetic centering of such a killing—provoked in the film by a whistle and a salute of solidarity that tacitly defied the Capitol, and carried out in front of his own community, as District 11 was apparently the Black district—filled me with a wonderment, and a kind of cautious energy.
The optics hadn’t been accidental.
The themes couldn’t be overlooked.
Surely, all across the country, my real country, a realization was—forgive me—catching fire. Surely.
Fast-forward to August 2014, and the killing of Mike Brown. The first wave of the Ferguson Uprising, a series of riots that took place in Ferguson, Missouri over the course of the next five months, began the next day. It had been nine months since Catching Fire came out, but as the second film in a series, its popularity had persisted, as had its publicity. Surely, that same overflow of support and recognition was going to rise up, I thought. Surely people were going to raise their hands in solidarity, and disallow history to repeat itself. It wasn’t going to be mostly Black Americans decrying this most recent slaying by a police officer. Surely the public wasn’t going to stand for the victim blaming and character assassinations it had permitted in the past.
Then the nation’s most celebrated newspapers informed me that Mike Brown, the teenage victim, was no angel.
Then the media and various personalities denounced the community’s response, and the anger, and the riot.
Whatever hope I’d nursed in those first awful hours bled out. Whatever I knew and believed about the socializing agent of entertainment media, and the fact that messaging is of paramount importance in either perpetuating the status quo or laying a foundation for re-education and enculturation—it hadn’t happened. If it takes exposure to get to awareness to get to empathy to get to solidarity to get to action, America’s progress was always slower than I wanted to believe.
By the second wave of the Ferguson Uprising, spurred by a grand jury declining to indict the officer responsible for Mike Brown’s death, it was November, and Mockingjay Part 1 was in theatres. Katniss Everdeen bellowed, “If we burn, you burn with us,”— but outside the dark theater, the world did not come to Ferguson’s aid. The country did not rally to stand against the militarization of the police force, or the separate set of laws under which officers had proven to operate. Those who came did so to document, to photograph, to disseminate, and then to talk about it somewhere far away, from a distance that allowed “civil discourse” to seem like a solution. And while it would be unfair to say that Ferguson wasn’t a “come to Jesus” moment for anyone, nothing swept the nation but viral images of alternately defiant and devastated protesters, of disproportionately equipped police officers and National Guard service people.
America, it turned out, was less concerned with the death and terrorization of its citizens even than Panem. Revolution was a high concept, meant for splashy acquisition deals that would become blockbuster YA novels and then glittering film adaptations. It was to be consumed, not condoned.
How very Capitol of us.
Recently the long-awaited prequel to the Hunger Games trilogy was finally teased, and it turned out that the protagonist at the center will be a young Coriolanus Snow. As in future president and villainous oppressor of Panem, Coriolanus Snow. And seeing as the author lives in the same America that I do, you know what? That tracks.
It’ll make one hell of a movie.
Bethany is a recovering expat splitting her time between Montreal, Quebec, and upstate New York—yet another foreign place. A California native, Bethany graduated from the University of California, Santa Cruz with a BA in Sociology (but took notable detours in the Film and Theatre departments). Following undergrad, she studied Clinical Psychological Research at the University of Wales, Bangor, in Great Britain.
TOR.COM

NFU TACKLING THE FARM AND CLIMATE CRISIS

https://www.nfu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Tackling-the-Farm-Crisis-and-the-Climate-Crisis-NFU-2019.pdf 

AOC takes down Ted Cruz over coronavirus comment: 'I’m surprised you’re asking about chromosomes given you don’t believe in evolution'


New York congresswoman questions qualification of Mike Pence to head government response


Andrew Buncombe Seattle Friday 28 February 2020

New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has delivered an online lesson to Republican Ted Cruz after he questioned her authority to comment on matters of science.

In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s decision to appoint vice president Mike Pence to spearhead the administration’s response to the coronavirus, many have questioned the move.

Some claimed that as governor of Indiana, he failed to act quickly enough to tackle an outbreak of HIV in his state in 2015 that eventually infected more than 200 people, some of whom were drug users who had been sharing needles.

“I don’t believe that effective anti-drug policy involves handing out paraphernalia to drug users by government officials,” he said at the time.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter: “Mike Pence literally does not believe in science. It is utterly irresponsible to put him in charge of US coronavirus response as the world sits on the cusp of a pandemic.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - the Democratic congresswoman in pictures
Show all 15




She added: “This decision could cost people their lives. Pence’s past decisions already have.”

Among those to jump to the vice president’s defence was Mr Cruz, the right wing Texas senator who is a staunch Christian, and who in 2016 was Mr Pence’s first pick for president, before he switched support to Mr Trump.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasts Trump for exploitative State of the Union Address ‘prizes’ and claims he is giving out cash to black Americans at rallies

“As you are speaking as the oracle of science, tell us, what exactly is a Y chromosome,” Mr Cruz said to Ms Ocasio-Cortez in the first of a trio of questions.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez, who once worked as a waitress, responded: “Sen Cruz, while I understand you judge people’s intelligence by the lowest income they’ve had, I hold awards from MIT Lincoln Lab &others for accomplishments in microbiology.”

Watch more
AOC defends Warren against ‘misogynistic trope’

“Secondly, I’m surprised you’re asking about chromosomes given that you don’t even believe in evolution.”

She finished by saying: “Sincerely – an Intel global finalist, a fmr multi-year intern for Sen. Kennedy, a cum laude dual major in Economics & International Relations, a fmr Educational Director for national organisation, Who to you is “just a bartender”.

“And also your colleague.”
The Trump administration just backtracked and said a coronavirus vaccine would be affordable for Americans — after triggering massive blowback
Joseph Zeballos-Roig  Feb 27, 2020

President Donald Trump with Health and Human Services 
Secretary Alex Azar. Reuters

The Trump administration reversed itself on Thursday and said a coronavirus vaccine would be affordable for the American public after it generated a storm of criticism over the drug's potential high cost.


Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said he would guarantee public access to a vaccine.

Only a day earlier, he declined to do so and cited the need for financial involvement from the private sector.

The development of a vaccine that successfully treats COVID-19 is still far off — at least a year in the best case scenario.


The Trump administration reversed itself on Thursday and said a coronavirus vaccine would be affordable for Americans amid a storm of criticism over its possible high cost.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told lawmakers during a congressional hearing that he would guarantee public access to a vaccine that treats COVID-19, the disease that the coronavirus causes.

"I have directed my teams that if we do any joint venture with a private enterprise, that we're cofunding the research and development program, that we would ensure there's access to the fruits of that, whether vaccine or therapeutics," Azar said.

The remarks come a day after Azar triggered massive blowback when he didn't promise a coronavirus vaccine would be financially accessible to most Americans.

"We would want to ensure that we work to make it affordable, but we can't control that price because we need the private sector to invest," Azar told lawmakers at another congressional hearing. "Price controls won't get us there."

Democrats immediately hit back. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a press conference on Thursday: "This would be a vaccine that is developed with the taxpayer dollars … and we think that should be available to everyone, not dependent on Big Pharma."

The development of a vaccine that successfully treats COVID-19 is still far off — at least a year in the best case scenario, given the rounds of rigorous testing involved on animals and humans.

Anthony Fauci, a top official at the National Institute of Health, said on Wednesday it would take between 12 and 18 months to create one and placed the focus on public-health measures instead to curb the virus' spread in the US.

The Trump administration is seeking a multibillion-dollar emergency spending package to fight the coronavirus, which has spread to over 47 countries from its point of origin in China. There are at least 60 confirmed cases in the US so far, most of which developed abroad.

At least $1 billion of the federal funding would be directed toward the creation of a vaccine, The Washington Post reported.



The Trump administration reversed course after saying the coronavirus vaccine might not be affordable for all Americans

Eliza Relman  Feb 26, 2020

President Donald Trump with Health and Human Services
 Secretary Alex Azar. Reuters

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on Wednesday declined to promise that a coronavirus vaccine would be affordable for all Americans, sparking outrage from Democrats.
"We would want to ensure that we work to make it affordable, but we can't control that price because we need the private sector to invest," Azar told members of Congress.
On Monday, the president asked Congress for $2.5 billion in funding to fight the coronavirus — including more than $1 billion designated for vaccine development.
Democratic leadership criticized the president's request as "anemic" and inadequate.
The administration reversed itself Thursday and said a coronavirus vaccine would be affordable for the American public, after generating a storm of criticism over its potential high cost

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on Wednesday declined to promise that a coronavirus vaccine would be affordable for all Americans.

"We would want to ensure that we work to make it affordable, but we can't control that price because we need the private sector to invest," Azar told members of Congress during a hearing concerning the coronavirus outbreak and the administration's budget request. "Price controls won't get us there."
—Michael McAuliff (@mmcauliff) February 26, 2020
—NowThis (@nowthisnews) February 26, 2020

Democrats and other critics quickly condemned Azar.

"Secretary Azar is refusing to promise that a Coronavirus vaccine will be affordable to every American. Kick them out of office," Sen. Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat, tweeted Wednesday evening.

The progressive group Center for American Progress tweeted, "This is a global health crisis, and everyone should have the right to medication that will help protect them from this virus."


While government and private researchers around the world are working quickly to develop a vaccine for the virus, it is estimated that any vaccine is still several months away. The best preventive measure is regular thorough handwashing.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slammed Azar's comments on Thursday and said any vaccine developed with taxpayer dollars would need to be made affordable.

After significant backlash, the administration reversed course Thursday and said any future COVID-19 vaccine would be made affordable.

"I have directed my teams that if we do any joint venture with a private enterprise, that we're co-funding the research-and-development program, that we would ensure there's access to the fruits of that, whether vaccine or therapeutics," Azar said.

On Monday, the president asked Congress for $2.5 billion in funding to fight the coronavirus — including more than $1 billion designated for vaccine development. Democratic leadership criticized the president's request as "anemic" and inadequate.


As of Wednesday, the US had confirmed 60 cases of the novel coronavirus that originated in the central Chinese city of Wuhan.

COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, has killed nearly 2,800 people and infected more than 81,000 since December. The vast majority of cases and deaths have been in China.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed cases in six states: Arizona, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin. Officials have recorded two cases of human-to-human transmission among family members.

Aria Bendix, Rosie Perper, and Lauren Frias contributed to this report. 

NOW WATCH: Donald Trump's anti-vaccination theory is wrong and dangerous


Trump accuses Democrats of politicizing the coronavirus, calling criticism of his handling of the outbreak their 'new hoax'
Lauren Frias
President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally, Friday, Feb. 28, 2020, in North Charleston, S.C. Patrick Semansky/AP


President Donald Trump accused Democrats of "politicizing" the coronavirus, calling their criticism of how he has responded to the disease their "new hoax."
Trump held a rally on Friday in Charleston, South Carolina, for his presidential campaign, where he lambasted Democrats for their criticism regarding his handling of the outbreak.
Trump's comments came after two more cases of coronavirus emerged in the US, bringing the total number of cases in the US to at least 64 cases.

President Donald Trump said mounting fears of the coronavirus are the "new hoax" of the Democrats, accusing them of politicizing the disease.

Trump held a rally on Friday in Charleston, South Carolina, for his presidential campaign, where he lambasted Democrats for their criticism regarding his handling of the outbreak.

"Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus," Trump said, adding, "They can't even count their votes in Iowa," referring to the disastrous Iowa caucuses earlier this month.

"They tried to get you on Russia, Russia, Russia; they couldn't do it," he continued. "They tried the impeachment hoax that was on a perfect conversation ... This is their new hoax."

Trump's comments came after two more cases of coronavirus emerged in the US on Friday. In addition, 44 infected passengers who were aboard the Diamond Princess during the quarantine as well as three evacuees from Wuhan, China — the epicenter of the outbreak — were repatriated, bringing the total number of cases in the US to 64 cases.

"[The coronavirus] starts in China, bleeds its way into various countries around the world," the president said, saying it didn't "spread widely at all in the United States because of the early actions" of him and his administration.

Trump also relayed that there were only 15 confirmed cases of the coronavirus during the rally (there are 64), and he only briefly mentioned the Diamond Princess passengers and Wuhan evacuees during a press conference on Wednesday.
—Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 29, 2020

Trump made a request to Congress asking for $1.8 billion to fund coronavirus relief efforts, on top of using $535 million from the ebola relief budget. Democrats and some Republicans condemned the request, calling it an "inadequate amount" to handle the coronavirus spread.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer proposed a budget of $8.5 billion for the coronavirus budget. Trump mentioned Schumer's proposal, saying he undercut the request since he didn't think Congress would grant him that large of a budget.

Trump barred a top health expert from speaking freely about the coronavirus. It's one of many ways the administration has muzzled scientists.
US president Donald Trump looks on as Director of the 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the 
National Institutes of Health Anthony Fauci speaks during
 a news conference on the COVID-19 outbreak at the 
White House on February 26, 2020.
 Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty


The Trump administration reportedly barred Anthony Fauci, one of the US' top experts on infectious disease, from speaking publicly about the coronavirus without approval.

Fauci has tackled the AIDS and Ebola epidemics. He's been director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984.

Some of Fauci's statements about the coronavirus have been at odds with claims from President Trump, who has said the illness will disappear.

It's not first time the Trump administration has muzzled scientific experts.

Anthony Fauci has been the director of the US' National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for 36 years. He guided the US through the AIDS and Ebola epidemics, and is now helping to lead the response to the new coronavirus outbreak.

But the Trump administration has reportedly barred him from speaking about the virus without clearance from the White House, according to The New York Times.

The coronavirus has killed nearly 3,000 people and infected 83,800. It has spread from China to more than 55 other countries.

Although Trump said the US is "rapidly developing a vaccine" for the coronavirus and "will essentially have a flu shot for this in a fairly quick manner," Fauci has estimated that we're between a year and a year-and-a-half away from a vaccine. Trump also expressed optimism that COVID-19 — the disease the virus causes — will disappear, but Fauci has suggested the world is on the brink of a pandemic.

In an apparent bid to exert more control over the messaging around this public-health crisis, The Times reported, the administration instructed Fauci "not to say anything else without clearance." A NIAID spokesperson told Business Insider that "this is not true," however.

Still, the Trump administration has a history of muzzling scientific experts. In the last four years, the White House has prevented meteorologists from discussing hurricane forecasts, Health and Homeland Security staff from commenting on gun violence after mass shootings, and US Geological Survey scientists from mentioning climate change.

Here are some examples of the Trump administration's attacks on science, which have often come in the midst of public crises.

As Hurricane Dorian barreled through the Caribbean on September 1, Trump incorrectly tweeted that the storm would hit Alabama. He later displayed a forecast map that had been doctored with a sharpie to include Alabama — information at odds with National Weather Service's prediction.

President Trump holds up a doctored graphic of Hurricane 
Dorian's trajectory, September 4, 2019. White House/Twitter

After National Weather Service forecasters took to social media to correct Trump's mistake, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a memo that disavowed the statements disputing the president's claims.

NOAA then released a statement supporting Trump's claims and refuting its own previous forecasts.

That dramatic reversal, according to The New York Times, came about because White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to ensure that NWS forecasters didn't contradict the president. Ross threatened to fire top NOAA officials if they didn't tamp down on the forecasters' comments.

Following back-to-back mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, last year, staff at the Department of Health and Human Services were told to get approval before posting anything on social media related to mental health, violence, or mass shootings.

A woman leans over to write a message on a cross at a 
makeshift memorial at the scene of a mass shooting at a 
shopping complex in El Paso, Texas, August 6, 2019.
John Locher/Associated Press

Trump linked gun violence to mental illness at the time: "Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun," he said.

But research suggests Trump's comment was bogus. Mental-health issues are not predictive of violent outbursts: Although as many as one in five people in the US experience mental illness every year, people with serious mental-health problems account for just 3% of all violent crime.


In November, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule that would require scientists to make their data public to the agency before their findings could be used in EPA policy decisions about public health.

Donald Trump delivers remarks with EPA acting Administrator 
Andrew Wheeler (L) at the White House State Leadership 
Day Conference on October 23, 2018. Win McNamee/Getty

That would cripple clean air and water regulations, CNN reported, because those public-health policies are rooted in studies that utilize confidential health records or disclosures.

According to The New York Times, the proposal would also retroactively halt the further use of research already referenced by the EPA if scientists didn't make that data public (including confidential medical records).
When a Department of Agriculture scientist's 2018 research revealed that rising carbon emissions will make rice less nutritious, the Trump administration questioned the findings then tried to minimize media coverage.

A farmer visits her rice paddy field in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Reuters/Nguyen Huy Kham

The USDA not send out a press release about the research, and they also declined to give the researcher, Lewis Ziska, permission to do media interviews.

Ziska had worked at the USDA for two decades, but he left his post in 2019, according to Politico.


In March 2019, US Geological Survey research found that sea-level rise and flooding will impact 600,000 Californians and cause $150 billion in property damages by 2100. But the accompanying press release downplayed that information.

A man and his son watch as waves crash off sea cliffs 
along the southeast shore of Oahu as Hurricane Lane 
approaches Honolulu on August 24, 2018. Caleb Jones/AP

The press release accompanying the study didn't include the expected costs of rising sea levels at all.

"An earlier draft of the news release, written by researchers, was sanitized by Trump administration officials, who removed references to the dire effects of climate change after delaying its release for several months, according to three federal officials who saw it," E&E News reporter Scott Waldman, who broke the news, wrote.

One anonymous federal researcher reportedly told Waldman: "It's been made clear to us that we're not supposed to use climate change in press releases anymore. They will not be authorized."

"Climate change" isn't the only phrase the Trump administration has censored. Two years ago, the administration prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using the words "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based," and "science-based" in 2018 budget documents.

The main Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) campus in Atlanta, Georgia. Tami Chappell/Reuters

According to the Washington Post, CDC staff was told to use language like "science in consideration with community standards and wishes," in lieu of "science-based."

In 2017, Department of Interior officials deleted sections of a letter detailing how President Trump's proposed border wall with Mexico would harm wildlife.

Government contractors erect a section of Pentagon-funded border wall along the Colorado River, September 10, 2019 in Yuma, Arizona. Matt York/AP

The letter came from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service and was sent to the Customs and Border Protection.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the letter brought up scientifically valid concerns about the potential impact of the border wall on endangered species that live along the border.

The National Park Service also muzzled employees last year.

Amidst a US government shutdown in 2019, National Park
 Service locations remained closed. 
 Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty

The acting deputy director of the Park Service, David Vela, told workers last summer that they had to check in with their supervisors in the Capitol before commenting to other federal agencies on issues related to gas and oil drilling.

Critics of the memo said it was an effort to prevent park staff from voicing opposition to development and drilling on federal public lands.


Anthony Fauci, who the Trump administration barred from speaking freely, is a public-health hero. The disease expert guided the US through AIDS, Zika, and Ebola.
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases, speaking at a press conference about the coronavirus, 
February 26, 2020. Michael Brochstein / Echoes Wire/Barcroft Media 
via Getty Images


The Trump administration reportedly barred Anthony Fauci, a top US experts on infectious disease, from speaking publicly about the coronavirus outbreak without approval.

Some of Fauci's statements about the virus have been at odds with claims from President Trump.

US public-health experts are angry, and one said his silence "is a threat to public health and safety."

Fauci has been director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984. He's tackled the AIDS, Zika, and Ebola epidemics

Anthony Fauci has guided the US through the AIDS, Zika, and Ebola epidemics.

He's been the director of the US' National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984, advising six presidents. George W. Bush awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008.


Fauci is now helping to lead the response to the new coronavirus outbreak.

But the Trump administration has reportedly told Fauci and other top health officials "not to say anything else without clearance" from the White House, according to The New York Times. A NIAID spokesperson told Business Insider that "this is not true," however.

Fauci's comments about the coronavirus have contradicted Trump's several times. Whereas Trump said the US "will essentially have a flu shot for this in a fairly quick manner," Fauci has estimated that we're between a year and a year-and-a-half away from a coronavirus vaccine. Trump also expressed optimism that COVID-19 — the disease the virus causes — will disappear, but Fauci has suggested the world is on the brink of a pandemic.


US health experts were angry about the White House's restrictions on Fauci's speech, the Times reported, given that the world is in the midst of one of the worst public-health crises in years.

"Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama trusted Tony Fauci to be their top adviser on infectious disease, and the nation's most trusted communicator to the public," Ronald Klain, who led the Obama administration's response to the 2014 Ebola crisis, tweeted on Thursday.

He added, "If Trump is changing that, it is a threat to public health and safety."

Here are some of Fauci's biggest accolades and achievements.



Fauci joined the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as an autoimmune-disease researcher after getting his doctorate from Cornell University.

Anthony Fauci attends the 21st International AIDS conference in Durban, South Africa, on July 19, 2016. Rajesh Jantilal/AFP via Getty

He's spent more than half his life working in the public-health sector.

Fauci took over the top position at NIAID in 1984. The institute has an annual budget of nearly $6 billion and manages the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS, measles, and tuberculosis in the US.

Anthony Fauci testifies about the US measles outbreak before a House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, February 3, 2015. Jim Bourg/Reuters

NIAID also supports research on autoimmune disorders like asthma and allergies and handles oversight of emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika.


When Fauci took over NIAID, the world was in the throes of the HIV/AIDS crisis. He was one of the leading architects of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a program credited with saving millions of lives.

Barack Obama tours the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland with Anthony Fauci (middle), December 2, 2014. Larry Downing/Reuters

Fauci's research has been pivotal in understanding how HIV destroys the body's immune system. He played a critical role in developing treatments that enable HIV-positive people to live long and active lives.


George W. Bush awarded Fauci the Presidential Medal of Freedom — the highest honor given to a civilian — in 2008 because of his role in creating the PEPFAR program.

George W. Bush presents the Presidential Medal of Freedom on June 19, 2008 to Anthony Fauci during ceremonies at the White House in Washington, DC. Karen Bleier/Getty

Fauci has also won the Presidential National Medal of Science and been given 45 honorary doctoral degrees from universities in the US and abroad.

He won the Robert Koch Gold Medallion, an international award for "accumulated excellence in biomedical research" in 2013.


President George H. W. Bush asked Fauci to be head of the NIH in 1989, but Fauci refused, saying that his work at NIAID was more important.

Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, November 22, 2016. Gershon Peaks/RVN/Reuters

As a researcher, Fauci has been the author, co-author, or editor of more than 1,300 scientific publications.

Fauci was the 41st-most cited researcher of all time based on Google Scholar citations, according to a 2019 analysis.

Anthony Fauci delivers remarks at the Economic Club of Washington, January 29, 2016. Jonathan Ernst/REUTERS

He ranks eighth out of more than 2.2 million immunology authors in terms of his citation counts in the last 40 years.


Fauci also worked on the response to the anthrax threat in the US following the September 11 attacks.

Anthony Fauci during a news conference at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, DC, January 28, 2020. Amanda Voisard/Reuters

After 9/11, the US prepared for a potential biological attack as deadly anthrax packages flooded the offices of government workers and members of the media. Fauci kickstarted a NIAID research program to work on treatments and vaccines for infectious agents that could be used by bioterrorists.


His expertise and experience were also critical during the Ebola outbreak between 2014 and 2016, and the Zika outbreak that started soon thereafter.

Anthony Fauci, right, testifies before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the US government response to Ebola on November 12, 2014. Gary Cameron/Reuters

Fauci assisted with the creation of public policy around Ebola, and he worked to reassure Americans of their safety.

Ned Price, a top National Security Council aide under the Obama administration, tweeted Thursday: "During the Ebola outbreak, we couldn't get enough of NIH's Dr. Fauci because no one knew more or could deliver it with more authority or experience. Muzzling Dr. Fauci is an effort to muzzle fact and science when it's needed most."


Fauci told Smithsonian Magazine in 2016 that we've learned the same lesson during every infectious-disease outbreak: "You've got to be prepared. You have to have good surveillance. You have to have good diagnostics."

\Anthony Fauci speaks to the media about the Zika virus in Washington, August 11, 2016. Joshua Roberts/REUTERS

He added: "You have to be able to move quickly. And we've shown that when you do that, you get good results."

Fauci has approached the new coronavirus outbreak in the same way.

Fauci's work has saved the lives of millions of men, women, and children across the world, according to the American Academy of Achievement.


Anthony Fauci speaks about the public-health response to the outbreak of the coronavirus during a news conference at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington DC, January 28, 2020. Amanda Voisard/Reuters

The Academy cited Fauci's legacy of leadership in public health and research into HIV/AIDS therapies
The pope has joined forces with Microsoft and IBM to create a doctrine for ethical AI and facial recognition. Here's how the Vatican wants to shape AI.
Pope Francis has embraced technology but has also warned 
of consequences. ANDREAS SOLARO/AFP via Getty Images

The Vatican called for stronger regulation of the use of artificial intelligence in a plan announced on Friday, Reuters first reported.

The document also said AI tools should work fairly, transparently, reliably, and with respect for human life and the environment.

Microsoft and IBM joined Pope Francis in endorsing the document, according to Reuters.
This isn't the first time Francis has weighed in on the moral and ethical issues that come with new technologies.

Pope Francis wants to see facial recognition, artificial intelligence, and other powerful new technologies follow a doctrine of ethical and moral principles.

In a joint document made public on Friday, the pope, along with IBM and Microsoft, laid out a vision that outlined principles for the emerging technologies and called for new regulations, Reuters first reported.

The Vatican's "Rome Call for AI Ethics" said that AI tools should be built "with a focus not on technology, but rather for the good of humanity and of the environment" and consider the "needs of those who are most vulnerable."

The "algor-ethics" outlined in the document included transparency, inclusion, responsibility, impartiality, reliability, security, and privacy, alluding to debates that have emerged around topics like algorithmic bias and data privacy.

Along those lines, it called for new regulations around "advanced technologies that have a higher risk of impacting human rights, such as facial recognition." Facial-recognition technology in particular has sparked concerns in recent years, thanks to research showing its problems with racial bias and the lack of transparency from companies that develop it.


The document, which was endorsed by Microsoft and IBM, is not the first time Francis has weighed in on ethical issues surrounding technology. At a Vatican conference in September, the pontiff warned that technological progress, if not kept in check, could lead society to "an unfortunate regression to a form of barbarism."

Others, both within and outside the tech community, have rolled out plans to address the side effects of AI. In January, the Trump administration unveiled a binding set of rules that federal agencies must follow when designing AI policies, while the European Union announced its own nonbinding principles in April.

Various people and organizations within the tech industry have spoken out about regulating AI, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, as well as AI ethics groups like AI Now and OpenAI.
Bill Gates says the coronavirus is a pandemic and a 'once-in-a-century pathogen.' Here are the solutions he's proposing to fight it.
"COVID-19 has started behaving a lot like the once-in-a-century pathogen we've been worried about," Gates wrote in a new op-ed.

Bill Gates. AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

Bill Gates has warned for years that pandemics are a major international threat.
In a new op-ed, he outlines solutions for the coronavirus outbreak that has spread to at least 56 countries.

Gates referred to the outbreak as a pandemic, though the World Health Organization has so far shied away from that declaration.

The coronavirus, Gates wrote, is behaving like a "once-in-a-century pathogen."



Bill Gates has warned for years that the world is not ready for a deadly pandemic.

Some of his ominous predictions are now playing out as the coronavirus spreads around the globe. The virus causes a disease known as COVID-19 and has killed almost 2,900 people and infected more than 83,000 others globally since December. The vast majority of cases and deaths have been in China.

"In the past week, COVID-19 has started behaving a lot like the once-in-a-century pathogen we've been worried about," Gates wrote in an op-ed for the New England Journal of Medicine. "I hope it's not that bad, but we should assume it will be until we know otherwise."

Gates referred to the outbreak as a pandemic, even though the World Health Organization has not yet made that declaration. The group has said instead that the virus has "pandemic potential."

"In any crisis, leaders have two equally important responsibilities: solve the immediate problem and keep it from happening again," Gates wrote. "The COVID-19 pandemic is a case in point. We need to save lives."
In the op-ed, Gates suggested the following solutions that could slow the virus' spread:
Wealthy countries should supply low- and middle-income countries in Africa and Southern Asia with trained healthcare workers to monitor the virus' spread and deliver vaccines.
Establish an international database where countries can share information.
Develop a system that screens for compounds that have already been safety-tested to use in a vaccine.

Governments and donors should fund manufacturing facilities that can pump out vaccines within weeks.

Gates compared COVID-19 to the 1957 flu pandemic, which killed more than 1 million people, and the 1918 flu pandemic, which killed 50 million people. The current outbreak, he wrote, is somewhere in between. 

Gates said everyone should have access to an affordable vaccine

Gates predicted that large-scale trials for a coronavirus vaccine could happen as early as June. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institutes of Health's infectious-disease center, recently said that he hoped to start testing vaccine candidates in people by mid-April.

Associated Press

However, drug development is typically a multiyear process that can cost about $1 billion in the US. Gates said making vaccines affordable for everyone was the "right strategy" for containing the coronavirus outbreak.


"Given the economic pain that an epidemic can impose — we're already seeing how COVID-19 can disrupt supply chains and stock markets, not to mention people's lives — it will be a bargain," he wrote.

On Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar declined to promise that a future coronavirus vaccine would be affordable for all Americans. But he backtracked day later, saying that any vaccine developed in conjunction with the US government would need to be financially accessible to the public.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has already contributed $100 million toward the fight to contain the outbreak. In his op-ed, Gates said warding off a pandemic would require billions of dollars.

"There is no time to waste," he wrote.

Though China has seen a drop-off in its rate of new cases in recent days, the coronavirus has spread to at least 55 other countries. At least 72 people have died outside mainland China.

EXCERPT
A Business Insider investigation into the Facebook CEO's secretive family office has uncovered a workplace in crisis over the family's handling of allegations of sexual harassment, racism, and transphobia.

Some workers say they have lost faith in the organization's capacity to fairly investigate and resolve disputes. The turmoil offers a rare glimpse inside the ultrasecretive world of billionaire family offices.

A representative for Zuckerberg described Business Insider's reporting as "a collection of unfounded rumors, exaggerations, and half-truths which unfairly malign several of our valued employees."


Zuckerberg's property empire, from Montana to Hawaii
Since dropping out of Harvard University in 2005 and moving across the country to build Facebook, Zuckerberg has amassed a growing property empire.

He has a 5,000-square-foot home in Palo Alto, which he bought in 2011 for $7 million (as well as several surrounding houses that he bought for an additional $30 million over the next few years). There's a 5,500-square-foot townhouse in San Francisco, for which he paid $10 million in 2013.

In 2018, he bought up two lakeshore properties at Lake Tahoe, California, for a combined $59 million. He has also quietly bought multiple properties at the elite Yellowstone Club ski resort in Montana, sources say.

And then there's Hawaii.

Many of the ultrawealthy in tech, including Marc Benioff, Paul Allen, and Peter Thiel, have acquired expansive estates on the island chain, and in 2014 Zuckerberg joined the club. He spent a reported $100 million on a vast, 700-acre ranch on the northeast corner of Kauai.

It is an expansive property, with cows and horses grazing its pastures, a petting zoo for the family, and space for Zuckerberg to hunt feral pigs with bow and arrow. The public beach that runs along its northern edge is a popular spot with local nudists and basking endangered Hawaiian monk seals alike, while humpback whales breach off-shore and albatrosses wheel overhead.

The purchase has proved intensely controversial, sparking numerous clashes with locals.
The Facebook founder has found himself in multiple land disputes
Under Hawaiian law, ancestral claims to land can often result in the title to a given plot of land having dozens of potential claimants. In an attempt to consolidate his ownership over the property, Zuckerberg's lawyers filed lawsuits — known as "quiet title" actions — that sought to establish sole ownership over his parcels and dispossess any indigenous Hawaiians of residual family interests they may have had in the ranch. The suits prompted allegations of "neocolonialism."

Zuckerberg backed down on the claims, though many on the island suspect that he continued to quietly bankroll a retired Hawaiian professor, Carlos Andrade, who continued legal proceedings in an attempt to secure control of some of the parcels. An attorney for Andrade did not respond to a request for comment.

Zuckerberg did not invent the "quiet title" land process, and he's hardly the first billionaire to buy property on the paradisaical Pacific island. But his global name recognition turned local Hawaiian land disputes into international headlines, transforming him into a focal point for local activists' and Hawaiian nationalists' anger.

Locals also accuse Zuckerberg of erecting a six-foot wall along part of the ranch's perimeter that blocks ocean breezes, and say his security team restricts access to the historic Ala Loa public trail that rings the island. (The exact path of the trail is disputed, and the family-office spokesperson referred Business Insider to an interview in which one local trail expert said "the research that we did indicated that the trail was not along the coast but further [inland].")

Randy Naukana Rego, a Fremont, California-born Hawaiian musician who lives in Kauai and has the right under state law to visit ancestral burial grounds on the Zuckerberg ranch, called the Facebook CEO "another rich guy who sues Hawaiian families and controls large amounts of land because he can."

"He does more good than harm," said a bartender at The Bistro, a restaurant and bar in the relaxed town of Kilauea, citing Zuckerberg's donations to local charities and employment of local residents. "A lot of people like to bitch about rich people." Zuckerberg went to The Bistro a few months after buying his Kauai property, he added, but was refused service because he didn't have his ID and the bartender working at the time didn't recognise him.