sometimes the accusation is so extreme, it MUST be investigatedPorteroso said:Married A Horn said:
Investigate his bank account. What is his salary? 300k? (I have no idea, just using as an example). I bet his net worth is close to or above $100M.
(Not a republican vs democrat thing - they all go into politics with an ok salary and little money and come out with millions upon millions).
I love how throwing out baseless lies is "I bet." Alternate fact meets war on the dictionary. What should we call the spawn?
Fauci to step down in December
6,999 Views |
123 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by BearFan33
Married A Horn said:Wangchung said:
You people celebrating act as if his replacement won't be twice as inept and far more corrupt. Glad he is gone but Biden's Geppetto will be picking his successor. Buckle up.
Very true
I'm sure his successor will be picked based first and foremost on high priority and important "qualifications" such as race, gender and sexual preference, with bonus points for any mentally ill person that "identifies" as the opposite sex from what their genitals define them as.
The man definitely had a checkered career .
Suspect his legacy will be very conflicted .
On a personal note can only say Fauci destroyed my life long confidence in the CDC.
Still vividly remember when the CDC, early on in the C-19 pandemic, proclaimed wearing N-95 masks was unnecessary and possibly counter productive.
Suspect his legacy will be very conflicted .
On a personal note can only say Fauci destroyed my life long confidence in the CDC.
Still vividly remember when the CDC, early on in the C-19 pandemic, proclaimed wearing N-95 masks was unnecessary and possibly counter productive.
Is there a flag or emoji I can post on my Facebook profile to show support for Fauci? I don't know anyone else who could convince some of our resident posters that using a mask to cover both of their blowholes would protect them from a respirator virus.
C'mon man, he was the model protection dude thingy. See!He Hate Me said:
Is there a flag or emoji I can post on my Facebook profile to show support for Fauci? I don't know anyone else who could convince some of our resident posters that using a mask to cover both of their blowholes would protect them from a respirator virus.
We can agree to disagree here. Rand Paul has him dead to rights IMO. The NIH changed the definition of gain of function on its website after fauci's testimony. I don't think "fact check" is going to save him. There is a reason he is now fleeing from the public spotlight.Sam Lowry said:Nah.BearFan33 said:The dude repeatedly lied to congress under oath. When given a chance to recant, he doubled down, I can remember when lying to congress was a pretty big thing. Or maybe it's just one of those laws that only apply to republicans and those in Trump's sphere.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
You can continue to worship at the fauci altar, but that dude has significantly damaged the reputation and prestige of the NIH.
I don't know what the website said before Fauci's testimony, but the current definition is the one that was adopted in 2017. After hearing Rand Paul, I sure wouldn't take his word on it.BearFan33 said:We can agree to disagree here. Rand Paul has him dead to rights IMO. The NIH changed the definition of gain of function on its website after fauci's testimony. I don't think "fact check" is going to save him. There is a reason he is now fleeing from the public spotlight.Sam Lowry said:Nah.BearFan33 said:The dude repeatedly lied to congress under oath. When given a chance to recant, he doubled down, I can remember when lying to congress was a pretty big thing. Or maybe it's just one of those laws that only apply to republicans and those in Trump's sphere.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
You can continue to worship at the fauci altar, but that dude has significantly damaged the reputation and prestige of the NIH.
Rawhide said:Says the liberal that probably believes men can get pregnant, little girls can grow up to be fine young men. You know, speaking of science.ScruffyD said:
Pretty sure the person behind him is also going to promote and follow science, which clearly a majority of this board will have issues with.
The lefty "science lovers" also believe a baby in the womb with a heartbeat and the ability to feel pain isn't really a human being and can be treated like nothing more than a tumor if the mother so chooses - for any reason. All of this while they have complete trust and faith in the radical environmental/climate quacks and charlatans who have been demonstrably wrong for going on 60 years now with their constant doomsday predictions that at most never happen or the exact opposite happens.
Being lectured by these hypocrites about "science" is the height of insanity.
Canada2017 said:
The man definitely had a checkered career .
Suspect his legacy will be very conflicted .
On a personal note can only say Fauci destroyed my life long confidence in the CDC.
Still vividly remember when the CDC, early on in the C-19 pandemic, proclaimed wearing N-95 masks was unnecessary and possibly counter productive.
F*U*** even said it himself.
Johnny Bear said:Rawhide said:Says the liberal that probably believes men can get pregnant, little girls can grow up to be fine young men. You know, speaking of science.ScruffyD said:
Pretty sure the person behind him is also going to promote and follow science, which clearly a majority of this board will have issues with.
The lefty "science lovers" also believe a baby in the womb with a heartbeat and the ability to feel pain isn't really a human being and can be treated like nothing more than a tumor if the mother so chooses - for any reason. All of this while they have complete trust and faith in the radical environmental/climate quacks and charlatans who have been demonstrably wrong for going on 60 years now with their constant doomsday predictions that at most never happen or the exact opposite happens.
Being lectured by these hypocrites about "science" is the height of insanity.
6 years or so Left on acclaimed scientist / climatologist AOCs end of the world prediction
Correct.Fre3dombear said:Canada2017 said:
The man definitely had a checkered career .
Suspect his legacy will be very conflicted .
On a personal note can only say Fauci destroyed my life long confidence in the CDC.
Still vividly remember when the CDC, early on in the C-19 pandemic, proclaimed wearing N-95 masks was unnecessary and possibly counter productive.
F*U*** even said it himself.
Someone within the CDC later admitted they knew all along an N-95 would help prevent the spread of the virus.
But there was a horrible shortage of N-95's at the time ...so the lie was presented to keep the limited supply of masks more available to doctors and nurses.
So much for trusting the almighty CDC ever again .
Up until recently, the NIH website had a section that discussed gain of function research, providing a broad definition of "a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent."Sam Lowry said:I don't know what the website said before Fauci's testimony, but the current definition is the one that was adopted in 2017. After hearing Rand Paul, I sure wouldn't take his word on it.BearFan33 said:We can agree to disagree here. Rand Paul has him dead to rights IMO. The NIH changed the definition of gain of function on its website after fauci's testimony. I don't think "fact check" is going to save him. There is a reason he is now fleeing from the public spotlight.Sam Lowry said:Nah.BearFan33 said:The dude repeatedly lied to congress under oath. When given a chance to recant, he doubled down, I can remember when lying to congress was a pretty big thing. Or maybe it's just one of those laws that only apply to republicans and those in Trump's sphere.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
You can continue to worship at the fauci altar, but that dude has significantly damaged the reputation and prestige of the NIH.
On Oct. 20, the NIH removed that section from its website, replacing it with one that discusses "enhanced potential pandemic pathogen" research, which it defined as "research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen's transmissibility and/or virulence in humans."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-senate-hearing-gain-of-function
There are other sources that discuss this change. I don't know what source you are reading.
I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.
Mothra said:
Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.
That is the mistake conservatives keep making about liberals. They dont care about right or wrong - they only care about being in power. And they will go to any length to spin any wrong by their side to a political advantage (playing the victim.)
Married A Horn
Hutto Hippo
Trinity Trojan
Hutto Hippo
Trinity Trojan
This is generally well-known. I am surprised Sam was unaware. Caused a big stink when they changed the definition, as it looked like it was an obvious attempt to make what appeared to be untruthful testimony, truthful.BearFan33 said:Up until recently, the NIH website had a section that discussed gain of function research, providing a broad definition of "a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent."Sam Lowry said:I don't know what the website said before Fauci's testimony, but the current definition is the one that was adopted in 2017. After hearing Rand Paul, I sure wouldn't take his word on it.BearFan33 said:We can agree to disagree here. Rand Paul has him dead to rights IMO. The NIH changed the definition of gain of function on its website after fauci's testimony. I don't think "fact check" is going to save him. There is a reason he is now fleeing from the public spotlight.Sam Lowry said:Nah.BearFan33 said:The dude repeatedly lied to congress under oath. When given a chance to recant, he doubled down, I can remember when lying to congress was a pretty big thing. Or maybe it's just one of those laws that only apply to republicans and those in Trump's sphere.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
You can continue to worship at the fauci altar, but that dude has significantly damaged the reputation and prestige of the NIH.
On Oct. 20, the NIH removed that section from its website, replacing it with one that discusses "enhanced potential pandemic pathogen" research, which it defined as "research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen's transmissibility and/or virulence in humans."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-senate-hearing-gain-of-function
There are other sources that discuss this change. I don't know what source you are reading.
The Intercept, a left wing publication, did a good article a while back on Fauci and Collins' misrepresentations to the American public.
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/
DOCUMENTS OBTAINED BY The Intercept contain new evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the nearby Wuhan University Center for Animal Experiment, along with their collaborator, the U.S.-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, have engaged in what the U.S. government defines as "gain-of-function research of concern," intentionally making viruses more pathogenic or transmissible in order to study them, despite stipulations from a U.S. funding agency that the money not be used for that purpose.
Grant money for the controversial experiment came from the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is headed by Anthony Fauci. The award to EcoHealth Alliance, a research organization which studies the spread of viruses from animals to humans, included subawards to Wuhan Institute of Virology and East China Normal University. The principal investigator on the grant is EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak, who has been a key voice in the search for Covid-19's origins.
Scientists unanimously told The Intercept that the experiment, which involved infecting genetically engineered mice with "chimeric" hybrid viruses, could not have directly sparked the pandemic. None of the viruses listed in the write-ups of the experiment are related to the virus that causes Covid-19, SARS-CoV-2, closely enough to have evolved into it. Still, several scientists said the new information, which the NIH released after it was sued by The Intercept, points to biosafety concerns, highlighting a general lack of oversight for research on pathogens and raising questions about what other information has not been publicly disclosed.
"As a virologist, I personally think creating chimeras of SARS-related bat coronaviruses that are thought to pose high risk to humans entails unacceptable risks," said Jesse Bloom, who studies the evolution of viruses at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, is a disease caused, like Covid-19, by an airborne coronavirus.
The experiment also raises questions about assertions from Fauci and NIH Director Francis Collins that NIH-funded projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology did not involve gain-of-function research. In May, Fauci testified before Congress: "The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology." The documents do not establish whether Fauci was directly aware of the work.
Scientists working under a 2014 NIH grant to the EcoHealth Alliance to study bat coronaviruses combined the genetic material from a "parent" coronavirus known as WIV1 with other viruses. They twice submitted summaries of their work that showed that, when in the lungs of genetically engineered mice, three altered bat coronaviruses at times reproduced far more quickly than the original virus on which they were based. The altered viruses were also somewhat more pathogenic, with one causing the mice to lose significant weight. The researchers reported, "These results demonstrate varying pathogenicity of SARSr-CoVs with different spike proteins in humanized mice."
But the terms of the grant clearly stipulated that the funding could not be used for gain-of-function experiments. The grant conditions also required the researchers to immediately report potentially dangerous results and stop their experiments pending further NIH review. According to both the EcoHealth Alliance and NIH, the results were reported to the agency, but NIH determined that rules designed to restrict gain-of-function research did not apply.
[url=https://theintercept.com/2022/08/16/portland-police-sean-kealiher-death-investigation/][/url]
The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research.
One said that the experiment "absolutely does not meet the bar" for gain-of-function research. "You can't predict that these viruses would be more pathogenic, or even pathogenic at all in people," said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist with the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan. "They also did not study transmissibility at all in these experiments," meaning that the scientists did not look at whether the viruses could spread across a population.
Three experts said that, while they did not have enough knowledge of U.S. policies to comment on whether the research met NIH criteria, the experiment involving humanized mice was unnecessarily risky.
One virologist, Vincent Racaniello, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, said while he considered the mouse experiment described in the document to clearly fall into the gain-of-function category, he didn't see it as problematic. "You can do some kinds of gain-of-function research that then has unforeseen consequences and may be a problem, but that's not the case here," said Racaniello.
Robert Kessler, communications manager for EcoHealth Alliance, denied that the work on the humanized mice met the definition of gain-of-function research. Kessler insisted that bat viruses are not potential pandemic pathogens because, he said, "a bat virus is not known to be able to infect humans." The proposal justified the work on WIV1 by explaining that it is "not a select agent" referring to a list of closely monitored toxins and biological agents that have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and "has not been shown to cause human infections, and has not been shown to be transmissible between humans."
But the group's bat coronavirus research was focused on the very threat that bat viruses pose to people. Kessler did acknowledge that, while the original bat coronavirus in the experiment did not spread among humans, the research was designed to gauge how bat coronaviruses could evolve to infect humans.
All but two of the scientists consulted agreed that, whatever title it is given, the newly public experiment raised serious concerns about the safety and oversight of federally funded research. "In my point of view, the debate about the definition of 'gain-of-function' has been too much focused on technical aspects," said Jacques van Helden, a professor of bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille Universit. "The real question is whether or not research has the potential to create or facilitate the selection of viruses that might infect humans." The experiments described in the proposal clearly do have that potential, he said.
NIH spokesperson Elizabeth Deatrick said that the agency had considered the research and decided not to restrict it under its own rules. "In 2016, NIAID determined that the work was not subject to the Gain-of-Function (GoF) research funding pause and the subsequent HHS P3CO Framework," Deatrick wrote, referring to criteria put in place in 2017 to guide the agency's funding decisions about research that involves, or is reasonably anticipated to involve, potential pandemic pathogens.
Republican members of Congress have alleged, without sufficient evidence, that gain-of-function research in Wuhan sparked the coronavirus pandemic. As part of an inquiry into the origins of the pandemic, they have twice grilled Fauci in Congress on his role as NIAID director.
In a heated exchange in July, Republican Sen. Rand Paul accused Fauci of lying when he claimed that NIH did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Experts now say that the documents support the contention that NIH funded gain-of-function work, though not in the specific instance where Paul alleged it. "There's no question," said Racaniello, of Columbia University, who pointed to the decreased weight of the mice infected with the chimeric viruses that was described in the research summaries sent to NIH. "From the weight loss, it's gain of function. Tony Fauci is wrong saying it's not."
But the documents do not prove Paul's claim that Fauci was lying, as they do not make clear whether Fauci read them. Nor do they in any way support Paul's allegation that Fauci was "responsible for 4 million people around the world dying of a pandemic" or that anyone intentionally caused Covid-19. What is clear is that program officers at NIAID, the agency that Fauci oversees, did know about the research.
A paragraph describing the research, as well as two figures illustrating its results, were included in both a 2018 progress report on the bat coronavirus grant and an application for its 2019 renewal. And NIH confirmed that it reviewed them.
"NIH has never approved any research that would make a coronavirus more dangerous to humans," the agency said in a statement, echoing remarks by Collins, the NIH director, posted to its website in May. "The research we supported in China, where coronaviruses are prevalent, sought to understand the behavior of coronaviruses circulating in bats that have the potential to cause widespread disease." Similar research funded by NIH had aided in the development of vaccines against the coronavirus, the statement continued.
The White House did not respond to questions about the research.
He's aware. He's just dishonest.
Married A Horn
Hutto Hippo
Trinity Trojan
Hutto Hippo
Trinity Trojan
Booray said:
If you want to understand Dr. Fauci's finances, this is a good article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2022/01/15/disclosures-released-dr-fauci-household-profits-exceeded-17-million-in-2020--included-income-royalties-travel-perks-and-investment-gains/?sh=1b31626d7d5f
No, he has not cashed in from Big Pharma while in public service. He has spent 55 years working very hard to protect the public health. He has a unique skillset. While disagreeing withthe advice he gave to policymakers is fair game. I am sure he made plenty of mistakes, given that he is a human being. But the financial angle is just wring to the point of being defamatory.
brave mengele heads for the exits.
where to next, fauc'?
argentina? brasil?
- KKM
stay the hell away from bremond, is all I can tell ye.
BID.
{ sipping coffee }
{ eating donut }
where to next, fauc'?
argentina? brasil?
- KKM
stay the hell away from bremond, is all I can tell ye.
BID.
{ sipping coffee }
{ eating donut }
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
Thanks for the link. I was reading the updated version. As you can see, they both use the P3CO framework as the relevant definition. The earlier version explains the difference between the term "gain of function" as loosely employed by some scientists and the type of research that was covered by the ban. It's not terribly hard to understand, but once the pandemic hit the NIH took a lot of criticism and was accused of poor messaging or worse. That was probably the reason for the change. In any case the controlling definition remained the same.BearFan33 said:Up until recently, the NIH website had a section that discussed gain of function research, providing a broad definition of "a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent."Sam Lowry said:I don't know what the website said before Fauci's testimony, but the current definition is the one that was adopted in 2017. After hearing Rand Paul, I sure wouldn't take his word on it.BearFan33 said:We can agree to disagree here. Rand Paul has him dead to rights IMO. The NIH changed the definition of gain of function on its website after fauci's testimony. I don't think "fact check" is going to save him. There is a reason he is now fleeing from the public spotlight.Sam Lowry said:Nah.BearFan33 said:The dude repeatedly lied to congress under oath. When given a chance to recant, he doubled down, I can remember when lying to congress was a pretty big thing. Or maybe it's just one of those laws that only apply to republicans and those in Trump's sphere.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
You can continue to worship at the fauci altar, but that dude has significantly damaged the reputation and prestige of the NIH.
On Oct. 20, the NIH removed that section from its website, replacing it with one that discusses "enhanced potential pandemic pathogen" research, which it defined as "research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen's transmissibility and/or virulence in humans."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-senate-hearing-gain-of-function
There are other sources that discuss this change. I don't know what source you are reading.
I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.Mothra said:I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.
From the article I posted...Sam Lowry said:I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.Mothra said:I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.
"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.
If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.
From your article:Mothra said:This is generally well-known. I am surprised Sam was unaware. Caused a big stink when they changed the definition, as it looked like it was an obvious attempt to make what appeared to be untruthful testimony, truthful.BearFan33 said:Up until recently, the NIH website had a section that discussed gain of function research, providing a broad definition of "a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent."Sam Lowry said:I don't know what the website said before Fauci's testimony, but the current definition is the one that was adopted in 2017. After hearing Rand Paul, I sure wouldn't take his word on it.BearFan33 said:We can agree to disagree here. Rand Paul has him dead to rights IMO. The NIH changed the definition of gain of function on its website after fauci's testimony. I don't think "fact check" is going to save him. There is a reason he is now fleeing from the public spotlight.Sam Lowry said:Nah.BearFan33 said:The dude repeatedly lied to congress under oath. When given a chance to recant, he doubled down, I can remember when lying to congress was a pretty big thing. Or maybe it's just one of those laws that only apply to republicans and those in Trump's sphere.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
You can continue to worship at the fauci altar, but that dude has significantly damaged the reputation and prestige of the NIH.
On Oct. 20, the NIH removed that section from its website, replacing it with one that discusses "enhanced potential pandemic pathogen" research, which it defined as "research that may be reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen's transmissibility and/or virulence in humans."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rand-paul-anthony-fauci-senate-hearing-gain-of-function
There are other sources that discuss this change. I don't know what source you are reading.
The reason the rules didn't apply is that the research didn't fit the definition at the time. The definition didn't change.Quote:
The grant conditions also required the researchers to immediately report potentially dangerous results and stop their experiments pending further NIH review. According to both the EcoHealth Alliance and NIH, the results were reported to the agency, but NIH determined that rules designed to restrict gain-of-function research did not apply.
He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.Mothra said:From the article I posted...Sam Lowry said:I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.Mothra said:I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.
"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.
If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.
I think the NIH is trying to play games with semantics to protect their little Hitler who lied repeatedly to congress.Sam Lowry said:I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.Mothra said:I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.
A good question is why would he lie? It reeks of a cover-up.
I agree at this time there is no evidence this particular research created COVID. But, as there was a plague that killed millions of people around the world and did untold economic damage, I think an investigation into the potential role the NIH may have played in it's appearance is warranted. Also the wisdom of using taxpayer dollars to conduct research in China (of any kind) needs an examination.
I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.Mothra said:From the article I posted...Sam Lowry said:I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.Mothra said:I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.
"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.
If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.
He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.Mothra said:I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.Mothra said:From the article I posted...Sam Lowry said:I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.Mothra said:I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.Sam Lowry said:I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.Rawhide said:
LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.
Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.
"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.
If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.
Fauci definitely will go down as one of the most skillful bureaucrats in history as well as the most incompetent and failed "scientists."
Had we actually listened to people like Scott Atlas and his coterie, who were smart enough to earn private sector jobs, we would we have myriad less self-inflicted damage.
Had we actually listened to people like Scott Atlas and his coterie, who were smart enough to earn private sector jobs, we would we have myriad less self-inflicted damage.
We dodged a bullet there. Atlas isn't an expert in the field, and it shows.Harrison Bergeron said:
Fauci definitely will go down as one of the most skillful bureaucrats in history as well as the most incompetent and failed "scientists."
Had we actually listened to people like Scott Atlas and his coterie, who were smart enough to earn private sector jobs, we would we have myriad less self-inflicted damage.
Sam Lowry said:We dodged a bullet there. Atlas isn't an expert in the field, and it shows.Harrison Bergeron said:
Fauci definitely will go down as one of the most skillful bureaucrats in history as well as the most incompetent and failed "scientists."
Had we actually listened to people like Scott Atlas and his coterie, who were smart enough to earn private sector jobs, we would we have myriad less self-inflicted damage.
Don't you have a fake mask study to proclaim? What shows? Your stupidity?
Sorry. I could recommend several good studies, but I don't think you'd be interested.Harrison Bergeron said:Sam Lowry said:We dodged a bullet there. Atlas isn't an expert in the field, and it shows.Harrison Bergeron said:
Fauci definitely will go down as one of the most skillful bureaucrats in history as well as the most incompetent and failed "scientists."
Had we actually listened to people like Scott Atlas and his coterie, who were smart enough to earn private sector jobs, we would we have myriad less self-inflicted damage.
Don't you have a fake mask study to proclaim? What shows? Your stupidity?
If I wanted to look at an Instagram bikini model it would be for the bikini body not for her as an "expert" and her tscience studies ... I'm too smitten with your daily TDS hysteria over overdue library books and flagpole coups.Sam Lowry said:Sorry. I could recommend several good studies, but I don't think you'd be interested.Harrison Bergeron said:Sam Lowry said:We dodged a bullet there. Atlas isn't an expert in the field, and it shows.Harrison Bergeron said:
Fauci definitely will go down as one of the most skillful bureaucrats in history as well as the most incompetent and failed "scientists."
Had we actually listened to people like Scott Atlas and his coterie, who were smart enough to earn private sector jobs, we would we have myriad less self-inflicted damage.
Don't you have a fake mask study to proclaim? What shows? Your stupidity?
It is clear SL has proven him / herself one of the more learned and astute experts in covid, mask effectiveity and vaccine science.
It has been amazing to watch him her pound out defense after defense for 2 years when I happen to skim a thought he / she has on covid.
Quite profound. I could name many many doctors all credentialed and lauded that would dispute almost everything he / she says but he / she wouldn't care.
To amass such knowledge in < 2 years and articulate it so glibly has been something g to behold.
Sir or madam, we thank you for the enlightenment
It has been amazing to watch him her pound out defense after defense for 2 years when I happen to skim a thought he / she has on covid.
Quite profound. I could name many many doctors all credentialed and lauded that would dispute almost everything he / she says but he / she wouldn't care.
To amass such knowledge in < 2 years and articulate it so glibly has been something g to behold.
Sir or madam, we thank you for the enlightenment
I can see that. I'm kind of surprised you keep repeating that library joke every day considering how badly it's aged. You'd think a person might stop digging once we heard Trump stole some of the most sensitive secrets we had, but no, not you. No way, no how.Harrison Bergeron said:If I wanted to look at an Instagram bikini model it would be for the bikini body not for her as an "expert" and her tscience studies ... I'm too smitten with your daily TDS hysteria over overdue library books and flagpole coups.Sam Lowry said:Sorry. I could recommend several good studies, but I don't think you'd be interested.Harrison Bergeron said:Sam Lowry said:We dodged a bullet there. Atlas isn't an expert in the field, and it shows.Harrison Bergeron said:
Fauci definitely will go down as one of the most skillful bureaucrats in history as well as the most incompetent and failed "scientists."
Had we actually listened to people like Scott Atlas and his coterie, who were smart enough to earn private sector jobs, we would we have myriad less self-inflicted damage.
Don't you have a fake mask study to proclaim? What shows? Your stupidity?
Sam Lowry said:I can see that. I'm kind of surprised you keep repeating that library joke every day considering how badly it's aged. You'd think a person might stop digging once we heard Trump stole some of the most sensitive secrets we had, but no, not you. No way, no how.Harrison Bergeron said:If I wanted to look at an Instagram bikini model it would be for the bikini body not for her as an "expert" and her tscience studies ... I'm too smitten with your daily TDS hysteria over overdue library books and flagpole coups.Sam Lowry said:Sorry. I could recommend several good studies, but I don't think you'd be interested.Harrison Bergeron said:Sam Lowry said:We dodged a bullet there. Atlas isn't an expert in the field, and it shows.Harrison Bergeron said:
Fauci definitely will go down as one of the most skillful bureaucrats in history as well as the most incompetent and failed "scientists."
Had we actually listened to people like Scott Atlas and his coterie, who were smart enough to earn private sector jobs, we would we have myriad less self-inflicted damage.
Don't you have a fake mask study to proclaim? What shows? Your stupidity?
For which DOJ branch do you work?
You have to post one of your cartoon mask "studies" just for old times sake? Please ...
BTW - can you name anything rona-related Scott Atlas got wrong?
sums it up and sums up most guvmint "work".Harrison Bergeron said:
Fauci definitely will go down as one of the most skillful bureaucrats in history as well as the most incompetent and failed "scientists."
Had we actually listened to people like Scott Atlas and his coterie, who were smart enough to earn private sector jobs, we would we have myriad less self-inflicted damage.
the reason we have a massive bloated corrupt inept necrotizing metastasizing arbys super-sizing "government".
- kkm
time to redo most of the entities and cut cut cut cut.
move some out of DC - ag for example.
zero-based budgets for a while.
- KKM
start w/ the FBI.
just make it battle interstate crimes - drug guns etc. no more 'national security' oversight.
and make pfizer and fauci et al criminally liable for their murderous fraud.
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.