|
Post by dadominate on Oct 5, 2021 14:30:32 GMT -5
i repeat, from one in the medical scientific trenches, that there are many scientists and clinicians who think fauci has handled covid (and HIV/AIDS before that) in an absolutely dishonest, unscientific manner that wreaks of protectionism for his colleagues and industry partners. i can't speak as much to clarence thomas, but there does not seem to be anywhere near consensus opinion on him, either. my view is that we will heal as a society when we stop pretending that people/causes/institutions are either "angels" or "devils", as the absolutely toxic poison that mainstream media has led many to believe. dadominate, I don't know what "trench" you are in, but your comments shock me. He literally wrote the book on immunology, and is one of the current authors of Harrison's Textbook of Internal Medicine. It's one thing to talk about policy disagreements, but what are you talking about when you say "absolutely dishonest, unscientific"? i have a phd in epidemiology and am faculty and direct an organized research center at a tier 1 research medical school. the center that i direct has received over 50 million in research grants, has published close to 900 peer-reviewed manuscripts, has educated many thousands of medical students, and has treated thousands of patients in our outpatient and inpatient clinical practices (including many covid patients). i oversee all of those functions while maintaining a robust public health research portfolio of my own. i am one of the few researchers who has never received a penny of funding from pharma or biotech and am thus one of the few who can speak freely on the subject without concern over my future grants. with that credibility in mind, to answer your questions, fauci's dishonest and unscientific transgressions over the least year alone include the following: - telling the american public that masks were not effective in slowing covid transmission early in the pandemic, when he knew damn well that surgical and n95+ masks did. this was later excused by his claim that healthcare professionals need them more. he should have said this instead of lying. there is no such thing as a noble lie. - his emails - which i have read carefully, as should everyone - clearly indicate that he was advised and acknowledged that the virus was unlikely to be of natural origin and was most likely modified in a lab due to its genetic sequence. - he knows that natural immunity provides at least as strong of protection against covid than vaccines, yet is pushing for vaccine mandates irrespective of previous infection status. - the niaid clearly funded gain of function research that was conducted in the wuhan lab and he lied about this to congress. the grants have been made clear, they were cited in peer-reviewed publications, and the intercept has made hundreds of pages of details on this topic publicly available. again, everyone should read these documents as they are revealing. - he is protecting colleagues, including but not limited to peter daszak, who should at the very least be closely investigated for conducting coronavirus research in bats in wuhan around the time of the beginning of the pandemic. - he never emphasizes the incredible wealth of scientific evidence that modifiable lifestyle factors including overweight/obesity, diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and physical inactivity represent the vast majority of covid hospitalizations and deaths. - he ignores other treatment and prophylactic strategies that have promising evidence, and the niaid fund almost nothing that is not tied to some patented treatment that will generate profit. - while vaccinations appear to offer benefit to those at risk, the myopic focus on vaccinations in light of everything we know about other cheap, off-patent treatments - which has largely fallen on the developed world that is not beholden to pharma influence in funding - is extremely disappointing. - we will never end the pandemic with monovalent, non-sterilizing vaccines. all viruses mutate and the asymptomatic spread among vaccinated individuals (you read that right, VACCINATED individuals), in particular, in the midst of a pandemic is almost certainly contributing to faster mutation due to the narrow spike-protein focused immunity of the current crop of vaccines. in short, fauci has destroyed faith in the public health establishment among millions of people worldwide and it will take at least a generation for that trust to be restored. i understand that his position has become increasingly political, but dishonesty can never be condoned. i have lost all respect for him and many of my similarly accomplished colleagues have been deeply disappointed in the way he has handled the pandemic.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Oct 5, 2021 17:00:02 GMT -5
Terrific post.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Oct 5, 2021 18:01:24 GMT -5
I am not a scientist so I defer on matters scientific to someone who is one, but this shrill post is short on facts and long on accusations. I don't believe Dr. F should be immune from criticism, but I am going to look into the available source information on some of these issues. Until then I am withholding judgment. Accusing Dr. F of lying to Congress, i.e, committing perjury, is a serious accusation.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 5, 2021 20:04:33 GMT -5
I am not a scientist so I defer on matters scientific to someone who is one, but this shrill post is short on facts and long on accusations. I don't believe Dr. F should be immune from criticism, but I am going to look into the available source information on some of these issues. Until then I am withholding judgment. Accusing Dr. F of lying to Congress, i.e, committing perjury, is a serious accusation. As for the last point, you might consider Newsweek (the credible accusation was even covered in the main stream press): www.newsweek.com/fauci-untruthful-congress-wuhan-lab-research-documents-show-gain-function-1627351
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Oct 5, 2021 22:06:52 GMT -5
You still have time to delete your post before more people read it, 67.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 5, 2021 23:13:49 GMT -5
I don't fault Dr. Fauci or others for advice given before a better understanding of the virus was attained. As an example, a few years ago I was shopping at Ocean State Job Lot and bought a box of 200 vinyl gloves only because you got the same amount back in "crazy bucks" so they were essentially free. I never opened the box, but when the pandemic hit everyone was afraid to touch surfaces. I was giving away gloves like Santa Claus and people thought I was God.
It turns out the virus doesn't spread effectively on surfaces, so people started wearing masks when it became clear that asymptomatic people could spread the virus through the air, but that didn't happen right away. And there was a critical shortage of masks in hospitals and nursing homes or else Robert Kraft would not have been hailed as a hero for sending his plane to China to bring back a million or two of them.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 5, 2021 23:45:39 GMT -5
...and now we have a potential paper products shortage looming again
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Oct 6, 2021 6:12:02 GMT -5
the actual gain of function grant that the niaid funded for coronavirus research in bats in wuhan is provided below (without any media spin from either side). www.documentcloud.org/documents/21055989-understanding-risk-bat-coronavirus-emergence-grant-noticein short, fauci blatantly lied in claiming that the niaid did not fund gain of function research into bat vector coronaviruses in wuhan. the only way a dishonest person could weasel out of such a statement under oath would be something to the effect that... "i did not murder that man, i merely shot him in the head and he died" or "i did not shoplift, i merely walked out of the store without any intention of paying for the candy bar". from one who at one point of time admired fauci, i remain deeply disappointed in this among many other instances of dishonesty and political pandering.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 6, 2021 6:34:29 GMT -5
I am not a scientist so I defer on matters scientific to someone who is one, but this shrill post is short on facts and long on accusations. I don't believe Dr. F should be immune from criticism, but I am going to look into the available source information on some of these issues. Until then I am withholding judgment. Accusing Dr. F of lying to Congress, i.e, committing perjury, is a serious accusation. As for the last point, you might consider Newsweek (the credible accusation was even covered in the main stream press): www.newsweek.com/fauci-untruthful-congress-wuhan-lab-research-documents-show-gain-function-1627351Ebright, from Rutgers and the sole source for Newsweek, is unconditionally opposed to any type of gain-of-function research. In the past, he has opposed government research into biological weapons, and defenses against such.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 6, 2021 6:58:38 GMT -5
Ebright, from Rutgers and the sole source for Newsweek, is unconditionally opposed to any type of gain-of-function research. In the past, he has opposed government research into biological weapons, and defenses against such. dadominate has linked the source document (above). I was pointing newfieguy74 to one particular example of one particular bit of mainstream coverage of one particular criticism/accusation v Fauci. . Beyond that, why would a public official really really want to distance himself from gain-of-function coronavirus research at Wuhan Lab🤔
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Oct 6, 2021 7:26:13 GMT -5
I thought this thread was about the ridiculous column by Hill. Yet, it not only has gone far afield. This thread has in fact been dragged into another political controversy - the right wing's obsession with attacking Dr. Fauci. Why are some people parroting right wing/Paul, et. al talking points? In fact I have read comments from others discrediting the essence of these claims about gain of function research with in implementation & funding.. NIH funding is not as simplistic as some portray it. Obviously with all the erroneous comments made in the past by some such as Covid is no more serious than the flu. (Idiotic) & other discredited statements they are not scientists. Yet they continue to pontificate about vaccinations, masks, etc as if they know something. And, Dr. Fauci continues to be the favored whipping boy of the discredited extreme right wing political front. In fact these comments are reflective of a years long effort by the political right wing. We all know it. Go ask rush. My point is this: Why keep bringing up these long discarded politically purposed criticisms of Dr. Fauci? Why? What is your purpose other than politics? Science? You are not highly placed scientists writing in a scientific journal. This is not a research journal. There can be only one reason. It would be better if some kept their political civil war off these pages. Till then I will ignore this rubbish. This thread should be closed.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 6, 2021 7:39:40 GMT -5
Ebright, from Rutgers and the sole source for Newsweek, is unconditionally opposed to any type of gain-of-function research. In the past, he has opposed government research into biological weapons, and defenses against such. dadominate has linked the source document (above). I was pointing newfieguy74 to one particular example of one particular mainstream coverage. Beyond that, why would a public official really really want to distance himself from gain-of-function coronavirus research at Wuhan Lab🤔 I am not going to get into a discussion about gain-of-function research at Wuhan or elsewhere because Dean Wormer will lock this thread. He has already cautioned about getting lost in the weeds about COVID. And this thread has migrated from Clarence Thomas, Patrick Healy, and an allegedly larcenous alum, and gone off the rails. IMO. That said, I am not an epidemiologist, but as a mission planner for a manned mission to Mars, I am quite aware of the risks of and prophylaxes against potential microbial life forms to which human-kind has not yet been exposed. --And yes, the quarantining of the Apollo astronauts on their return to Earth, was, in retrospect, a Mickey Mouse action.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 6, 2021 9:24:33 GMT -5
Not Mickey Mouse, Phreek, “out of an abundance of caution” when you aren’t certain what you are dealing with. The same “belt and suspenders” strategy we should be using for Covid. That’s why I have had my two Moderna jabs; still wear a mask; will get my booster as soon as it’s approved. Being 73 and diabetic, those are little things and only minor inconveniences to the alternative of getting Covid no matter how small the risk.
The mask helps prevent me from getting an “outbreak case” and if I should catch it, especially if I got an asymptomatic case, it’ll help protect others.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Oct 6, 2021 9:27:53 GMT -5
Not Mickey Mouse, Phreek, “out of an abundance of caution” when you aren’t certain what you are dealing with. The same “belt and suspenders” strategy we should be using for Covid. That’s why I have had my two Moderna jabs; still wear a mask; will get my booster as soon as it’s approved. Being 73 and diabetic, those are little things and only minor inconveniences to the alternative of getting Covid no matter how small the risk. The mask helps prevent me from getting an “outbreak case” and if I should catch it, especially if I got an asymptomatic case, it’ll help protect others. Risk management? Endeavor to reduce the risk of Covid infection to as close to zero as possible.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 6, 2021 9:30:34 GMT -5
Yeah, learned that stuff in many professional insurance courses I took,
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 6, 2021 10:12:24 GMT -5
For me the tough thing with Covid-19 and the pandemic is that there are highly credentialed experts who will end up 180 degrees apart on some aspect of the issue. An example is masking: we hear from some experts that we should wear masks while other experts say that masks do no good at all. We have some experts insisting that children and infants should be vaccinated while others say that is not a good idea.
I saw a man wearing a mask a couple of days ago while riding a bicycle...
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 6, 2021 10:28:27 GMT -5
And his mask might have had nothing to do with Covid prevention. Perhaps he has allergies and/or concerned with air pollution.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 6, 2021 10:32:25 GMT -5
And his mask might have had nothing to do with Covid prevention. Perhaps he has allergies and/or concerned with air pollution. He's a neighbor- I think I can find him and ascertain the reason he was wearing the mask, Care to make a bet on the Covid vs allergy reason?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 6, 2021 10:50:44 GMT -5
I wouldn't care if he was MY neighbor, I don't bet. You're the guy who moved to Kentucky to play the horses. Not my thing. But, let's assume you are absolutely right (I'm sure you are), what's the harm to you? Is his wearing a mask any worse than if he wore weird clothes?
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 6, 2021 10:54:29 GMT -5
There's no harm to anyone-I was just trying to point out that there is much confusion regarding the pandemic and how we should respond.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 6, 2021 12:20:21 GMT -5
There's no harm to anyone-I was just trying to point out that there is much confusion regarding the pandemic and how we should respond. The problem is if your neighbor is in a position to mandate his bike/mask proclivity. And there is always the danger it’ll slip up over his eyes and he smashes into an oncoming car.
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Oct 6, 2021 13:40:12 GMT -5
funny, i was accused of not providing facts while providing a link to an *actual grant itself* funded by the niaid for gain of function research in bats at the wuhan lab... what could be more factual?!? between that and the actual open access, peer-reviewed paper linked below directly citing the niaid funding for the research, there is no debate on this issue. it is shocking that anyone can support this person after blatantly lying before congress and to the world by extension. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708621/and mm67, you are the only poster in this thread to introduce anything remotely political into the discussion. i am not a political person, have no loyalty to any political party, and stopped watching the poison of mainstream news many years ago. confession by projection? i was responding to the question as to why many scientists and clinicians are critical of fauci's handling of the covid pandemic. it is a sad state of affairs when ideology and blind allegiance trumps desire for truth... particularly when the truth is as irrefutable as it is in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Oct 6, 2021 13:59:48 GMT -5
dadominate, Re: Dr. Fauci: Why? What is your goal? Of course you did not present documentation from the overwhelming majority of the worldwide scientific community who support Dr. Fauci. Gain of function research and funding are quite complex. I'm sure if you parse Dr. Fauci's words you will find in fact he did not lie. Yet, you have never presented the other side. Why?You chose and have continued to cite the relatively few who are critics. Why? And in the process you have continued to mouth the talking points of the extreme right wing. Why? So please understand, no personal offense, but if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck then... Protestations to the contrary. Why not start a new thread: "Scathing Articles About Dr. Fauci"? I think at this point it would be best to stop this discussion. Suggest you do the same. There will be no further responses from this poster on this topic. Peace & Good Will.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Oct 7, 2021 12:52:25 GMT -5
the actual gain of function grant that the niaid funded for coronavirus research in bats in wuhan is provided below (without any media spin from either side). www.documentcloud.org/documents/21055989-understanding-risk-bat-coronavirus-emergence-grant-noticein short, fauci blatantly lied in claiming that the niaid did not fund gain of function research into bat vector coronaviruses in wuhan. the only way a dishonest person could weasel out of such a statement under oath would be something to the effect that... "i did not murder that man, i merely shot him in the head and he died" or "i did not shoplift, i merely walked out of the store without any intention of paying for the candy bar". from one who at one point of time admired fauci, i remain deeply disappointed in this among many other instances of dishonesty and political pandering. dadominate, thank you for the reference. I have waited to reply until I could read the over 500 page "gain of function" grant request that you have referred to as proof that Dr. Anthony Fauci lied. In my reading of the grant award document, I could find no information to support your claim. In addition, on page 189, I noted the following declaration: "No funds are provided and no funds can be used to support gain-of-function research covered under the October 17, 2014 White House Announcement (NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-15-011). funds are provided and no funds can be used to support gain-of-function research covered".
You said in your most recent post that, "it is a sad state of affairs when ideology and blind allegiance trumps desire for truth... particularly when the truth is as irrefutable as it is in this instance." I admit that reading the 528 pages in the document you shared was tedious, and perhaps I overlooked something, but I could find no such "irrefutable" truth. Consequently, I remain at a loss to understand your animus. I guess in a way of thinking, research to understand how a bat corona virus could adapt to emerge in humans could be thought of as "gain of function", but I could not find in the grant award document any intent to try and cause or direct "gain of function" as a part of the research.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 7, 2021 13:17:12 GMT -5
Interesting (?) that the thread was based on an article criticizing 3 Holy Cross alums: Clarence Thomas, Patrick Healy and William King.
First guy was there atop Mt. St. James when I was there and I had but one encounter with him.
Second guy, my only connection to him was living in a dorm named after him for my last two years on campus.
Third guy, I have to admit I don't recall ever hearing about.
So now, as is standard operating procedure on Crossports, the discussion has moved off topic to another alum who was never mentioned in the article, Tony Fauci.
I have no qualifications to opine on "gain of function" and happy to stay on the sidelines and leave it to the experts as this is no longer about Robert Hill's article.
|
|