|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 2, 2021 22:52:44 GMT -5
Fauci and Palazzi both finished second at Keeneland today
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Apr 3, 2021 6:55:36 GMT -5
I have broached the topic of regulatory capture on this board previously both in regard to this public health debacle and other topics only to be met with an array of 'when you don't like the message, go after the messenger' type responses. I caught a whiff of that in response to my recent post here as well. At the risk of doing so again I will respond to prior posts referencing my name and requesting further background on why it is that The Editorial Board of the WSJ categorized our fellow alumnus in less than glowing terms. I want to make sure that this post is not viewed as political in nature by saying that any critique expressed here is done so from a vantage point that I believe that political officials and governmental regulators across the entire political spectrum feed from the same industry-funded trough. This unquestioned reality is the essence of the massive conflicts of interest that I see running throughout this public health saga much as they did the same in the housing crisis that brought upon the Wall Street crisis of 2008 and also the student loan racket (now ~$1.6T in size). So as to promote conflicts as right v left while the big money grab continues, a host of other issues are often and typically drummed up for purposes of distraction. Sad day in our country but not a surprise when pursuit of truth is relegated to the back burner by those charged in pursuing and promoting that prized virtue but I digress. I do not know Dr. Fauci. I have never met him. I hold no personal animus toward him. I do hold in real contempt the fact that he and many others are undoubtedly subject to significant conflicts of interest and in my opinion fail to fully uphold their mandate to protect the public interest. Feel free not to take my word for this fact. In fact, vigorous debate on these topics is healthy and represents what I thought a Holy Cross education is supposed to represent. Fellow Crusaders and others who frequent these parts may want to think long and hard as to why The Editorial Board of the WSJ pans Dr. Fauci in such a fashion. On that note and in regard to conflict of interest, here are some specific references further expounding on what I had linked from what The Editorial Board had to say: "The World Health Organization on Tuesday finally released its report on the origins of the coronavirus, and the result wasn’t worth the wait. The document is best understood as a whitewash heavily influenced by the Chinese Communist Party and Westerners with conflicts of interest."Further along the Editorial Board writes: "The WHO team is also compromised by conflicts of interest. Zoologist Peter Daszak, the American on the team, has collaborated with the WIV (Wuhan Institute of Virology) for years and supported gain-of-function research. As early as February 2020 he helped coordinate a statement in the Lancet condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” Another team member, virologist Marion Koopmans, oversees an outfit in the Netherlands that has conducted gain-of-function research and could face serious repercussions if the pandemic started in a lab."The statement referenced above about Daszak coordinating a statement in the industry periodical Lancet is par for the course in terms of how the conflicts of interest within the regulatory capture is evidenced. "The Biden Administration hasn’t taken a definitive position on the lab-leak theory, but Covid-19 spokesman Anthony Fauci played down the idea last week. Dr. Fauci’s institute financed work at the WIV and has backed gain-of-function research. He’s the wrong man to reassure the public about lab research on coronaviruses."That is a damning statement but again it goes straight to conflicts of interest. I wish the WSJ would pursue it even further. "Even the WHO recognizes the implausibility of the report. “I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions,” WHO director-general Tedros Ghebreyesus said Tuesday. “Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation.” He’s ready to deploy more specialists, but don’t expect Beijing to welcome them."One does not have to look far or dig too deeply to learn as to how massively corrupted Dr. Tedros and the WHO is. The fact that Dr. Fauci sung his and their praises very early on was in my opinion a massive red flag. "The U.S. and 13 other governments released a statement Tuesday expressing “shared concerns” that the WHO study “was significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data and samples.” That’s nice, but it sounds like they’re prepared to conclude that Covid’s origin story is unknowable and move on.
That shouldn’t be the end of it. The Biden Administration knows the underlying intelligence and should release it to the public. Unless it does, China’s propaganda backed by the WHO’s failure will prevail in much of world opinion. The Biden Administration says it wants to revitalize multilateral institutions, and that should start with refusing to accept the WHO’s Wuhan whitewash."I was personally surprised that the WSJ Editorial Board wrote this editorial as I have often seen them fail to properly call out banks, academics, other industries, so called charitable organizations, non-governmental organizations and our pols and regulators who have fallen into the regulatory capture trap that is our national reality circa 2021. I gather that when that reality encompasses none other than the leaders of the PRC that even The Editorial Board of the WSJ looks upon that as a bridge too far. I commend them for doing so and again hope they might dig even deeper in this effort. In typical fashion, I have written too much but for serious students who may care to dive deeper into this topic and how it touches upon our fellow alumnus, I welcome providing this link:The Wuhan Whitewash - Dr. Fauci: www.google.com/search?q=The+Wuhan+Whitewash+Dr.+Fauci+&sxsrf=ALeKk01pVOwQ6HyTgVukP8g3KsRL2J_Zvg%3A1617453681557&ei=cWJoYK_GIdC3ggfn-onIBw&oq=The+Wuhan+Whitewash+Dr.+Fauci+&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAM6BwgjELADECc6BwgjEK4CECc6CAghEBYQHRAeOgUIIRCgAToFCCEQqwJQ1g9Y0ihgyixoAXAAeACAAVOIAfAGkgECMTKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6yAEBwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwjvwoTBjOLvAhXQm-AKHWd9AnkQ4dUDCA0&uact=5Additionally, this commentary addresses the topic of conflicts of interest within this sphere: How Conflicts of Interest Are Changing Medical Research daily.jstor.org/how-conflicts-of-interest-are-changing-medical-research/Navigate accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 3, 2021 7:01:21 GMT -5
td128, thank you for a most reasoned explanation of your views. I differ with some, but that is simply personal belief so I will spare all. Again, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Apr 3, 2021 8:04:23 GMT -5
Thanks, td - anytime China is involved it’s hard to believe anything that comes out of their mouths - I too wish dr. Fauci would criticize them more but he doesn’t - he enjoys a lit of credibility in this country and could do more to tell ‘the rest of the story’
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 3, 2021 8:12:51 GMT -5
Perhaps he will tell it one day, when he receives a special honor on Mt St James.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Apr 4, 2021 13:04:09 GMT -5
1. I admire Dr. Fauci greatly but don't think he should be immune from reasonable criticism 2. I agree you can trust very little of the information put out by China 3. I agree that WHO has compromised its credibility (which doesn't mean it has no value as an organization) 4. I've seen contradictory reporting about the connection between NIH and the Wuhan Lab. It does appear that NIH gives a lot of money to international groups to fund research. If NIH has given or does give money to the Wuhan Lab I can see an argument that there is an appearance of a conflict. But the appearance of a conflict does not mean that Dr. Fauci is suppressing or watering down his real opinions about the origins of he virus or anything else. Any appearance of a conflict notwithstanding I think that Dr. Fauci is a man of sufficient integrity that he would and does tell the truth.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Apr 4, 2021 19:46:15 GMT -5
The U S. Government providing financial aid to China appears outdated. Scientific cooperation of course but save the financial support for countries that need it.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 5, 2021 8:32:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Apr 9, 2021 4:08:32 GMT -5
Who owns the liability attached to the use of the Astra Zeneca product used in this public health situation?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 9, 2021 6:29:21 GMT -5
Who owns the liability attached to the use of the Astra Zeneca product used in this public health situation? The only vaccinations in the United States with Astra Zeneca's vaccine were clinical trials. (Although millions of doses were manufactured in the U.S., these are sitting on the shelf, as AZ will not be approved for use in the U.S., there being no need for it. The question is where do those AZ doses now get sent, gratis.) Subjects who participate in clinical trials sign a waiver. In the United States, there is a vaccine injury program run by the Federal government, which indemnifies manufacturers against claims of vaccine injury. (That the Federal government indemnifies the private sector against certain losses is not new, nor is it confined to vaccines. There would be no nuclear power in the U.S. if there weren't government indemnification of the nuclear power industry. Post 9-11, the Federal government indemnified two airlines, and, IIRC, several airport operators.) See: www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.htmlI am not a student of product liability law in other countries. However, I will note that aviation-injury lawyers engage in forum shopping when it comes to plane crashes, pursuing Boeing or GE in U.S. courts (including less sophisticated state courts) for plane crashes (1) occurring in a foreign country, (2) where the airline is a foreign operator not doing business in the United States, (3) none of the passengers were citizens/residents of the United States, and (4) a manufacturing defect is not thought to be the cause. Thus, it would not surprise me that if AZ vaccine had been developed in the U.S., e.g., Moderna, that the tort bar in the U.S. would pursue damages against AZ in a U.S. court on behalf of individuals who had no association with the United States for injuries allegedly arising from a vaccination in the UK, or Belgium, or Egypt, or Uzbekistan, etc., etc. See: www.flightglobal.com/parker-stunned-by-43m-court-award/55330.article
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Apr 24, 2021 21:59:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by higheredguy on Apr 25, 2021 3:43:57 GMT -5
I found that be an an enlightening article filled with praise for Fauci due to his steadfastness in the face of unwarranted criticism from opportunistic politicians or uneducated segments of the population.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Apr 25, 2021 7:02:02 GMT -5
Frank Bruni's article is one of praise for Fauci due to his unwavering and principled commitment to public health, as well as his willingness to persevere in the light of unremitting criticism that is often politically motivated and sometimes idiotic. So many people seem to think that the epidemiology of a pandemic--an out of control virus--has mathematical certainty, but it is a dynamic and ever changing problem.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 25, 2021 7:39:38 GMT -5
While hagiographic Fauci writings in the NYT are par for the course, there is a current of criticism in other sources regarding his public indoor and outdoor double masking (he is fully vaccinated) and the message that sends to the masses in terms of vaccine efficacy. It is an interesting conflict between the appealing gesture of masking during a pandemic and the importance of showing the vaccine's benefit to folks thus far reluctant. I'm sure he recognizes the subtleties (and the science) of public health and we may see a mask-less (and again, fully vaccinated) Dr. Fauci out and about in the fresh air at some point in the very near future.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Apr 25, 2021 8:27:10 GMT -5
How about both parties in government, and the respective federal agencies, don’t completely understand the virus and how it will behave.
They are offering incomplete and conflicting guidance, or a picture of what we are dealing with at this time, to fit their individual and political agenda and needs. It is important to remember that government rarely funds prevention measures or emergency preparation efforts, but instead declares it Recognized the problem, Reacted in some form, Responded to the crisis with dollars to help individuals, communities, and the country move towards Recovery- better. known as four of the five Rs government offers to a crisis. In almost every case it never provides the 5 the R-drives the country to a state of Resilency.
As I explain to audiences and students
If a politician says Yes that means Maybe If they say Maybe that is probably No And of course if they say No they are no longer a politician
With respect to Newfie’s remarks about WHO, I would suggest that other than the support by a few countries and Gates, it is no longer held to be of value to developed countries. The G7 and G20 look to OECD for health policy recommendations and WEF for innovative approaches and debate.
Tony and other experts continue to deliver on the known science, but have been unfairly used by both sides to fit a political narrative which creates the criticism we hear and read about today. Some might be fair, but imho most is not.
Finally I can't wait for us to move from this phase of Response and Recovery and for the second time in many generations achieve a nonpolitical place of Resiliency for this country and the world. The first being 9/11
|
|
|
Post by alum on Apr 25, 2021 8:27:25 GMT -5
It is only hagiographic if it is excessive.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Apr 25, 2021 9:32:47 GMT -5
I agree that both sides are trying to use Dr. Fauci for their political purposes. The problem to me is that he makes it way too easy by not anticipating or caring about how his answers are going to be used or why a question is phrased in a certain way. For example, on CNN the other day, he was asked about a recent poll showing that “43%”of Republicans say they won’t get a vaccine. That would have been a good opportunity for him to say there are many people of both parties who are unwilling to get vaccinated (21% according to the poll in question) and that we should come together as a country to make sure that everyone understands the benefits of the vaccine to people individually as well as our ability to return to “normal” as quickly as possible. Instead, he took the bait, made it about Republicans and definitely made it less likely that reluctant Republicans are going to get vaccinated. Because now they’re all saying “FU Dr. Fauci! You can stick your vaccine up your derrière.” If he’s as smart as we think he is, he needs to be smart enough to bring down the political temperature on this issue if he really wants more people vaccinated. He may have also pointed out that the Monmouth study in question polled a grand total of 79 Republicans who said they were unwilling to be vaccinated. He might also have pointed out that 45% of the people polled said they were Independents, which suggests registered Republicans or Dems didn’t want to be judged by the poller and just said they were Independent. Among these “Independents,” a much higher percentage said they would be vaccinated.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Apr 25, 2021 10:46:41 GMT -5
I wonder if Fuaci went to, say, Colgate, this board would have such praise for him.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 25, 2021 10:50:38 GMT -5
I, for one, would. Believe he has done well in very difficult circumstances. Perfect? Hardly, but certainly well done overall. Changing one's answers to play politics? Thank goodness he does not play that game.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Apr 25, 2021 10:53:49 GMT -5
92, I wonder if many Republicans were so influenced by that interview that they now decide against the vaccine ( “ stick that vaccine...”) whereas they may have gotten it before the interview. Maybe Dr. Fauci could have been more diplomatic in his response, but he is a doctor, not a diplomat.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 25, 2021 11:07:14 GMT -5
I have little or no concern for anyone who makes their medical decisions based on politics...whether Democrats, or Republicans, or Libertarians, or Socialists, etc.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Apr 25, 2021 11:16:27 GMT -5
92, I wonder if many Republicans were so influenced by that interview that they now decide against the vaccine ( “ stick that vaccine...”) whereas they may have gotten it before the interview. Maybe Dr. Fauci could have been more diplomatic in his response, but he is a doctor, not a diplomat. He is supposed to be a doctor but he answers loaded questions that take him out of the realm of pure doctor when he answers them in the political framework in which they’re asked. He should reject any question that starts with “Well, Republicans . . .” or “Well, Democrats . . .” Science isn’t about Republicans and Democrats. He should answer questions scientifically and specifically reject questions that ask him to play politics as the one from CNN clearly did. To answer your first question, I do believe that, if all of our leaders on both sides made an effort to do what I’m suggesting Fauci do, we’d be a hell of a lot better off as a country and more people would definitely be vaccinated. The constant politicization and polarization on every issue is killing our country in so many ways. If you don’t think videos like the one above have an effect on how people think about issues and push them to extreme positions on both sides, you have the good fortune of not spending much time on social media. I would recommend continuing to avoid social media because it’s a very scary place these days.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Apr 25, 2021 11:29:10 GMT -5
I do totally avoid social media and intend to continue. I believe President.Biden has done an admirable job calming down the tempest since January 6, as much as could be expected. But perhaps not enough for the social media sites you visit.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Apr 25, 2021 11:58:30 GMT -5
I wonder if Fuaci went to, say, Colgate, this board would have such praise for him. Most certainly I would. Coming from a physicians family & value I respect science. Once again on this board our political orientation is quite obvious. Humbly suggest people move on.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 25, 2021 12:17:31 GMT -5
I agree that both sides are trying to use Dr. Fauci for their political purposes. The problem to me is that he makes it way too easy by not anticipating or caring about how his answers are going to be used or why a question is phrased in a certain way. For example, on CNN the other day, he was asked about a recent poll showing that “43%”of Republicans say they won’t get a vaccine. That would have been a good opportunity for him to say there are many people of both parties who are unwilling to get vaccinated (21% according to the poll in question) and that we should come together as a country to make sure that everyone understands the benefits of the vaccine to people individually as well as our ability to return to “normal” as quickly as possible. Instead, he took the bait, made it about Republicans and definitely made it less likely that reluctant Republicans are going to get vaccinated. Because now they’re all saying “FU Dr. Fauci! You can stick your vaccine up your derrière.” If he’s as smart as we think he is, he needs to be smart enough to bring down the political temperature on this issue if he really wants more people vaccinated. He may have also pointed out that the Monmouth study in question polled a grand total of 79 Republicans who said they were unwilling to be vaccinated. He might also have pointed out that 45% of the people polled said they were Independents, which suggests registered Republicans or Dems didn’t want to be judged by the poller and just said they were Independent. Among these “Independents,” a much higher percentage said they would be vaccinated. Beyond the questionable wisdom of appearing on a show like that (and your point is well taken regarding the obvious bias/dishonesty), I've noticed governmental bureaucrats tend to blame the folks when their plans or products don't work out as hoped. And it is very off-putting and counterproductive. Perhaps Dr. Fauci needs to swallow his pride and take some input from people of other political persuasions (SEN Paul, amongst others) in order to improve his messaging and improve vaccine numbers.
|
|