RESOLVING THE LEDGER
This is one outlet's own report from Fox News — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
See the full story · 1 sourcesNewly released text messages from Dr. Anthony Fauci have sparked fresh questions about his handling of evolving COVID-19 evidence, according to Dr. Marc Siegel, Fox News senior medical analyst.
The texts are part of an initial batch of communications from Fauci's government-issued cellphone released Monday by Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rand Paul, R-Ky. The messages shed light on private discussions between Fauci and other top health officials as they navigated evolving questions around the coronavirus pandemic .
In a Monday evening interview, Siegel suggested the former White House chief medical adviser was at times too "dogmatic" and slow to adapt as the science evolved.
EXPOSED FAUCI DIARY SHOWS HE ESTIMATED COVID-19 DEATH RATE TO BE MUCH LOWER THAN WHAT HE TOLD CONGRESS
Siegel said Fauci was a "top immunologist" and "top vaccinologist."
"And I respect that a lot," he said, adding that he felt Fauci then ventured beyond those areas of expertise.
"The other issue is flexibility. I have a feeling about Dr. Fauci that he's too dogmatic," Siegel told Fox News Digital, adding that Fauci would "stick to some idea he has and [follow] it through regardless of contradictory or changing evidence."
Siegel said he believed Fauci veered into territory beyond his medical training and knowledge, on issues including lockdowns, school closures and masking.
LEGACY MEDIA COVERS ANTHONY FAUCI DIARY BY CRITICIZING DONALD TRUMP INSTEAD OF FAUCI'S DISHONESTY
"So it's not surprising that he would, for lack of a better word, flip-flop on those areas," he said.
Regarding the newly released texts , Siegel said "it looks like he was trying to guide other public officials and leaders from the television camera, and that's not what you should be doing."
Among the issues addressed in the newly released messages is COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.
Siegel emphasized that he remains a strong supporter of vaccines, including mRNA technology.
"I'm a big fan of the COVID vaccines and of the mRNA COVID vaccines ," the doctor said. "I think they're getting a bad rap right now."
Pregnancy presented a complicated risk calculation because COVID-19 itself posed dangers to expectant mothers, Siegel noted.
Early in the pandemic, he said, recommending vaccination during pregnancy was reasonable based on what was known at the time.
But as the virus changed and vaccines became less protective, Siegel said he believes the public discussion should have changed with it.
"As the vaccine changed and the virus mutated, and as the vaccine became less protective, that needed to be entered into the public debate about the vaccine — and Dr. Fauci wasn't fast enough to do that," Siegel said.
Siegel also pointed to a study that raised questions at the time about a potential link between a second vaccine dose and early miscarriage.
"I don't think that Dr. Fauci and others may have been quick enough to consider that," he said.
While subsequent research has continued to support vaccination during pregnancy — Siegel said "the accumulation of data right now favors the vaccine throughout pregnancy" — he questioned whether contradictory evidence received sufficient consideration as it emerged.
"It's a little eyebrow-raising to me that it appears he was trying to dismiss a study " suggesting miscarriage could be a concern, Siegel said.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES
More broadly, such decisions should rest with patients and their doctors, while emphasizing that the underlying medical data was "not suppressed," according to the doctor.
"I don't like when the government superimposes their views, especially if they're incorrect or if they are ill-informed, but I still think it should be between the patient and the doctor," said Siegel.
Siegel argued that another problem came when policies failed to adjust quickly enough to changing evidence about the vaccines' effectiveness.
"I think the problem was that the mandates continued," he said. "We were too slow to pivot on this vaccine, and that led to a lot of public distrust ."
Asked whether he saw a meaningful difference between what Fauci was discussing privately and what Americans were hearing publicly, Siegel said there was "more than I would like."
"There's a difference between public and private discourse here," he said. "There should be none."
As additional messages are released, Siegel said he will be watching how Fauci's guidance evolved alongside the evidence.
"I'm looking at one thing: Where was the evolution of guidance and thought and staying within your lane as more and more information came out?" he said. "Or did this develop more and more into dogma and megalomania? I don't know. That's what I'm disturbed about."
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
At the same time, Siegel cautioned against judging pandemic-era communications without considering what scientists knew at the time.
"To be fair to Dr. Fauci, things need to remain in context," he said. "When did this happen? What was going on at the time? What did we know and what did we not know?"
Added Siegel, "We were learning on the job. We were learning as we went. We knew nothing about this thing, and it just blew over us."
That uncertainty, he said, made a willingness to change course all the more important.
"Humility is the best way to go — not dogma."
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.