Early in the Covid pandemic, I discovered Dr. Anthony Fauci giving wildly contradictory information.
While he was publicly raising alarms in testimony to Congress and on late night comedy shows, claiming Covid was “ten times deadlier than flu,” he was publishing something quite different in a scientific journal. There, he said, Covid was like a bad flu season—not ten times deadlier.
Some of the questions this raised include:
Why didn’t the scientific establishment notice and draw attention to the same important contradiction that I, as a layman, saw?
Why didn’t America’s medical reporters flag the discrepancy?
Why didn’t the scientific journals notice and say something?
…Why didn’t Fauci’s peer reviewers or co-authors?
…Why didn’t physicians who read the journals but surely also heard his inflammatory statements in public?
In March of 2020, I did my best to try to get Fauci to answer to the contradictions. I also contacted the scientific journal that published the Fauci article.
Below, you can read some of the email exchanges.
Though it seems as if Fauci may not have missed an opportunity to get in front of the camera or talk to reporters, I had no such luck getting him to engage.
You will see that a colleague and co-author of Fauci’s, Dr. Clifford Lane, did engage in discussion with me. You will be able to read the journal’s response to my challenges. And, at the end of this post, you can read the article I wrote about all of it at the time. You will see that even in these early days, I had identified Dr. Jay Bhattacharya— now head of the National Institutes of Health— as an honest and reliable source of information on the Covid controversies.
Interestingly, during this time period, the New York Times targeted me with a defamatory report by Jeremy Peters in an attempt to discredit me: “From Jerry Falwell Jr. to Dr. Drew: 5 Coronavirus Doubters” (March 18, 2020).
I publicly documented multiple false or misleading claims, a deceptively altered quote from my reporting, and other issues regarding the Peters article. But the Times refused to correct it, even as they admitted it contained false material.
Ultimately, I hired a defamation lawyer and sent the Times a legal demand letter. Only then did the Times issue corrections and revisions to its article (on April 1, 2020), including acknowledging that I had accurately reported U.S. coronavirus death numbers and locations. The Times also removed some false material about me and adjusted other language. Of course, few people probably saw the corrections.
Read on for details.
Here are some pertinent email exchanges beginning in late March of 2020.
From: Sharyl Attkisson
Date: March 28, 2020 at 9:20:14 PM CDT
Subject: NEJM article/National media question
Dr. Fauci,
How are you? I hope you are well. I know you cannot be getting much rest or down time.
I have four quick questions for a story I’m writing. Your earliest response would be appreciated!
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
When you and your colleagues write:
If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.
1. Is it still true that coronavirus is 10x more lethal than flu? Or does the above information amend that statement?
2. In layman’s terms, what are the basic or biggest differences between coronavirus and seasonal flu? (i.e. is coronavirus more infectious or easily transmitted?)
3. Assuming coronavirus lethality turns out to be similar to seasonal flu… but coronavirus is more lethal in elderly than is seasonal flu.. does that mean coronairus is less lethal for the rest of the population including children?
4. Is there reason to think coronavirus fatality rate may be lower (or higher) in US than other countries?
Thank you for your replies.
(If it’s easier for you to chat on the phone, my number is below or I can call you.)
Sharyl Attkisson
Managing Editor, Investigative Reporter
Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson
From: “Fauci, Anthony (NIH/NIAID) [E]” <afauci@niaid.nih.gov>
Subject: RE: NEJM article/National media question
Date: March 28, 2020 at 9:25:28 PM CDT
To: Sharyl Attkisson
My work with the Coronavirus Task Force and the large volume of incoming emails precludes me or my staff from answering each individual message. I would encourage you to visit www.coronavirus.gov for the latest information and guidance related to COVID-19.
Thank you, and best regards.
Anthony S. Fauci, M.D.
Subject: National Media Question/Deadline today
Date: March 29, 2020 at 9:41:58 AM CDT
To: New England Journal of Medicine media support
Good day! I hope all are safe and well on your end.
I’m looking at a updated editorial first published Feb. 18 and republished March 26.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
Can you tell me what material is different or updated?
Also, this mortality rate information in the article (below) is different than what is being widely publicized. Has it been changed?
I have contacted Dr. Fauci but he is unable to respond due to his work load.
Any assistance you can provide to help me be accurate in my story would be very appreciated! My deadline is ASAP but hopefully I can hear back from you by 1pm ET today (Sunday).
If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.
Thank you!
Sharyl Attkisson
Managing Editor, Investigative Reporter
Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson
From: Sharyl Attkisson
Subject: Information request /under Deadline
Date: March 29, 2020 at 11:13:45 AM CDT
To: “Nordlund, Kristen (CDC/DDID/NCIRD/OD)”
Hi Kristen,
I hope you are safe and sound!
I have a couple of quick questions I hope you can answer today ASAP.
1. Is coronavirus more transmittable than seasonal flu? If so can you quantify and explain? (Does it live longer, pass over longer distances in air etc?)
2. In layman’s terms, what are the primary differences we see between coronavirus and flu (i.e. coronavirus transmissibility, more respiratory complications etc.?)
3. In the updated NEJM article Dr. Fauci and company state that using the denominator of all infected people, coronavirus mortality rate may be more akin to seasonal flu (.1%) than the 10 x higher figure we keep hearing about. Does CDC agree and can you provide any other context so I can be accurate in describing?
If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
Thank you for your attention,
Sharyl Attkisson
Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson
———————-
From: Sharyl Attkisson <hitprint@icloud.com>
Subject: Second Try: Information request /under Deadline
Date: March 29, 2020 at 8:31:57 PM CDT
To: CDC “Nordlund, Kristen (CDC/DDID/NCIRD/OD)”
Pinging again, the press office didn’t respond. Please see below.
Hoping you can respond when you’re back in office Monday!
Thanks
Sharyl Attkisson
Managing Editor, Investigative Reporter
Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson
From: “NEJM, Mediasupport” New England Journal of Medicine
Subject: Re: SECOND ATTEMPT Re: National Media Question/Deadlne today
Date: March 30, 2020 at 10:28:42 AM CDT
To: Sharyl Attkisson
Sharyl,
Nothing changed in the editorial. It was published online ahead of print, and then print.
We cannot answer your other question, as it is for the author.
Jen
Jennifer Zeis | Director, Communications and Media Relations | NEJM Group
http://www.nejm.org
| @NEJM
From: Sharyl Attkisson
Subject: Fact check & interview request
Date: March 30, 2020 at 9:47:54 AM CDT
To: Clifford Lane, NIH
Hi Dr. Lane!
I’m writing about coronavirus fatality rate and want to check on the number published in NEJM.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.
Is this accurate? I’m asking because since this was published, I believe I have heard Dr. Fauci still say it’s deadlier or 10 x more fatal than flu.
Also was this figure in the original article or only the “update” version published last Thursday?
I reached out to Dr. Fauci but got an automated response. I also reached out to NEJM and they did not respond. I want to be sure I get this right, of course.
I believe we have met before but I don’t know in connection to what story. I reported for CBS News for 20 years, and CNN before that. I now have an independent Sunday morning national TV new program that feeds to 43 million ABC NBC CBS Fox Telemundo viewers each week! I also write for various publications.
I have other coronavirus-related questions I won’t bother you with now— but would love to do an on camera interview with you if you are available. I could set this up remotely Wednesday afternoon (via your computer in the comfort of your office or home) or sometime in the future; I’m afraid we will be wrestling with this topic for quite some time.
Thank you,
Sharyl Attkisson
Managing Editor, Investigative Reporter
Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson
From: “Lane, Cliff (NIH/NIAID) [E]”
Subject: Re: Fact check & interview request
Date: March 30, 2020 at 7:53:19 PM CDT
To: Sharyl Attkisson <hitprint@icloud.com>
To clarify the language in the editorial – the 0.1% figure was the estimate for severe seasonal; the 1968 pandemic was about 0.5%.
SARS and MERS were 10% and 36%.
The statement was only intended to indicate that the mortality from COVID-19 was likely closer to that of severe flu mortality than to that of SARS or MERS.
Cliff
On Mar 30, 2020, at 8:12 PM, Lane, Cliff (NIH/NIAID) [E]
The thinking at the time was in the range of 1%. That was the best overall estimate we had from the experiences at China at that time.
From: Sharyl Attkisson
Date: Monday, March 30, 2020 at 9:10 PM
To: “Lane, Cliff (NIH/NIAID) [E]”
Subject: Re: Fact check & interview request
Got it. But the article doesn’t mention the 10 x higher than flu estimate.
I’m trying to reconcile or explain whether the thinking is 10 x higher than flu *or* about like a bad flu…which is a big difference and it looks like both are being said at the same time...
(1% v. .1%) Thanks for any clarity. My number is below and we could chat on background without attribution if it’s helpful.
Sharyl Attkisson
Managing Editor, Investigative Reporter
Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson
From: “Lane, Cliff (NIH/NIAID) [E]”
Subject: Re: Fact check & interview request
Date: March 30, 2020 at 8:28:45 PM CDT
To: Sharyl Attkisson
It says flu is 0.1%; talks about pandemic flu without a figure; and says COVID-19 is closer to severe or pandemic flu than to SARS or MERS with respect to mortality.
At least that was what we were trying to say.
Fauci offers a more conservative death rate in academic article than in public coronavirus briefings
Covid Article in Just the News April 2020
By Sharyl Attkisson
You’ve probably heard that coronavirus, Covid-19, is ten times deadlier than flu. But it could turn out to be more akin to a severe flu season. Surprisingly, both of those assessments come from the same authority at the same time: Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Fauci has repeatedly cited the more alarming figure in public. But among his learned colleagues in academia, he has provided the far more conservative analysis.
In Congressional testimony on March 11, Fauci declared that Covid-19 “is ten times more lethal than the seasonal flu.” That generated news headlines that blared across the internet and television news and is frequently cited today.
But in a scholarly article, Fauci staked out what reads like a far more conservative estimate. This one would put the coronavirus death rate near that of a severe flu season.
“[T]he case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%,” writes Fauci in an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine on March 26. “This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”
A day after the NEJM article was published, Fauci was back to repeating the higher fatality number in public rather than “considerably less than 1%.” “The mortality of [Covid-19] is about 10 times [flu],” Fauci told Comedy Central host Trevor Noah on March 27.
Fauci was not available to answer questions when Just The News contacted him. A resource familiar with the background of the NEJM article says it was first written many weeks ago and was attempting to convey that coronavirus mortality appears to be closer to that of a severe flu season than SARS or MERS.
But the seemingly different assessments draw attention to the inexact nature of scientific projections, and difficulties inherent in quantifying the unknown. They also heighten suggestions from other scientists who say the most widely-publicized death rates are being incorrectly calculated, and that early predictions about coronavirus mortality could turn out to be too high.
Reporting accurately on simple but important scientific facts can be fraught with peril in today’s charged media environment. Those who make cataclysmic-sounding projections are accused of being alarmist. Those who point to the possibility of lesser risks get attacked for supposedly downplaying or doubting coronavirus. Rarely is the public provided a range of possibilities with clear explanations.
A lower-than-advertised coronavirus fatality rate would not mean concern is misplaced. Since there is no vaccine for coronavirus, experts say it could end up infecting a much larger proportion of the population than the flu typically does. Stated plainly: even if the rate at which Covid-19 kills is not substantially different than flu, coronavirus could reach more of the population and, therefore, kill more people than seasonal flu.
But the wildly divergent death rates have huge implications. They are the difference, for example, between 200,000 deaths and two million.
Do the Math
There is little doubt we have been subjected to questionable math. Calculating the death rate for a disease is mathematically simple, requiring 4th or 5th grade skills. Take the number of deaths (numerator) divided by the whole group (denominator). But officials have routinely made what some scientists see as an error in defining “the whole group.” They use the relatively small number of sick patients testing positive. In fact, the way to figure an accurate death rate is to use the much larger number of people who have coronavirus, including the majority with mild symptoms or no symptoms at all, who are never diagnosed.
Many in the media have made the mistake of reporting that coronavirus mortality “is a moving target” or is “falling.” In fact, scientists say coronavirus mortality in a given region of the world isn’t changing. The number being reported is merely inching closer to becoming more accurate as cases are added to the denominator.
What difference does it make? By way of hypothetical example, if 10 sick people have coronavirus and one of them dies, the first method produces a fatality rate of 10%. But if you factor in 90 others who had coronavirus, but were neither tested nor diagnosed, the fatality rate becomes much smaller: 1%.
“The true fatality rate is the portion of those infected who die, not the deaths from identified positive cases,” says Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor of medicine at Stanford University in California. Bhattacharya and his colleagues worked out the math in an opinion article recently published in The Wall Street Journal. “The true number of infections is likely orders of magnitude more than confirmed cases. Epidemiological modelers haven’t adequately adapted their estimates to account for these factors.”
“Since Italy’s case fatality rate of 8% is estimated using the confirmed cases, the real fatality rate could in fact be closer to 0.06%,” they write. That estimate is a remarkable departure from Italy’s widely-publicized figures.
Bhattacharya hypothesizes that Covid-19 is likely about as lethal as a typical flu, but more deadly for older patients and those with chronic health conditions. “We need to know the number of people who have been infected (including those who have recovered) before we can figure out whether that hypothesis is correct,” says Bhattacharya.
Bhattacharya is part of a group of scientists launching a new, landmark study this week to answer that question. They plan to begin by using a new coronavirus antibody test to sample 5,000 people grocery shopping from geographically representative samples around Santa Clara county. Such studies aim to yield the most accurate fatality rate so far. Even more important, perhaps, we will learn who has gotten coronavirus and fought it off, but never knew it. These people could go about their business in the nation because they would have antibodies theoretically protecting them from a recurrence, and would be of no danger to those who have not had coronavirus.
“Everything up until this point is just a guess,” Dr. Bhattacharya tells Just The News. “I think it is unlikely that the case fatality rate is 10 times more deadly than the flu.”
Sharyl, thank you for your diligence.
I think a lot of the numbers were inflated to create an atmosphere of fear in order to promote the vaccine.
Fauci was the go to guy for the media. He had a rockstar status and few were willing to challenge him.
Hopefully history will record what actually happened and what was hidden.
The first time I saw him lie was in the measles hearings, mid-2019. He said the MMR vaccine can't cause encephalitis, and his colleague had to correct him bc they were under oath. You could see his arrogance from then.