Bingo.

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.

---

Not really true. But keep in mind that if I can't prove vaccines didn't cause 4,000 deaths, you can't prove Fauci's mandates aren't responsible for beating the pandemic. Post hoc, propter hoc. So let's give credit where it's due.

---

You might want to take a look at the FOIA Fauci emails just released. There's going to be a lot of crow eating around here.

---

Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.

---

This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:

In an email on February 5, 2020, Fauci advised against wearing masks and said that face masks bought in a store would not be effective at protecting against the virus. He was replying to queries from one Sylvia Burwell, who may be to the same Sylvia Burwell who served as secretary for health and human services from 2014 to 2017.

"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection," Fauci wrote.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."

This is of course all very science based, according to Sam.

---

That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?

---

I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. %A0What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? %A0Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February? %A0

---

They are effective at preventing the spread. It says so right there in the email: "Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection."

---

He said the typical mask is not effective at keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material and recommended not wearing a mask. %A0

As we all know, he then reverses course and said cloth masks are effective. So again I ask, what science was that based on? %A0What science made him change course? %A0And does it trouble you how wrong he was?

---

They are typically much less effective keeping it out than keeping it in. That remains true. The issue here was whether healthy people should buy masks to protect themselves. Given the limited supply, he didn't think the benefit outweighed the cost in the early weeks of the pandemic.

---

Yet, that is not what he said. %A0For the third time I ask, what science was that based on? %A0What science made him change course? %A0And does it trouble you how wrong he was or that he lied to protect the mask supply?

---

I can't answer your questions because those things never happened. They're just another part of the self-contained narrative that anti-maskers repeat for their own enjoyment.

---

Please cite me to where Fauci said that masks are typically much less effective keeping it out than keeping it in.%A0 Please show me where he said healthy people should buy masks to protect themselves.

---

"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection," Fauci wrote.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."

---

So making entire school districts wear masks was pretty much an exercise in pointless futility?

---

Not at all.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.

---

It's a quote. What's your interpretation?

---

What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.

---

This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.

---

Not really true. But keep in mind that if I can't prove vaccines didn't cause 4,000 deaths, you can't prove Fauci's mandates aren't responsible for beating the pandemic. Post hoc, propter hoc. So let's give credit where it's due.

---

You might want to take a look at the FOIA Fauci emails just released. There's going to be a lot of crow eating around here.

---

Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.

---

This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:

In an email on February 5, 2020, Fauci advised against wearing masks and said that face masks bought in a store would not be effective at protecting against the virus. He was replying to queries from one Sylvia Burwell, who may be to the same Sylvia Burwell who served as secretary for health and human services from 2014 to 2017.

"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection," Fauci wrote.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."

This is of course all very science based, according to Sam.

---

That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?

---

I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. %A0What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? %A0Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February? %A0

---

They are effective at preventing the spread. It says so right there in the email: "Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection."

---

He said the typical mask is not effective at keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material and recommended not wearing a mask. %A0

As we all know, he then reverses course and said cloth masks are effective. So again I ask, what science was that based on? %A0What science made him change course? %A0And does it trouble you how wrong he was?

---

They are typically much less effective keeping it out than keeping it in. That remains true. The issue here was whether healthy people should buy masks to protect themselves. Given the limited supply, he didn't think the benefit outweighed the cost in the early weeks of the pandemic.

---

Yet, that is not what he said. %A0For the third time I ask, what science was that based on? %A0What science made him change course? %A0And does it trouble you how wrong he was or that he lied to protect the mask supply?

---

I can't answer your questions because those things never happened. They're just another part of the self-contained narrative that anti-maskers repeat for their own enjoyment.

---

Please cite me to where Fauci said that masks are typically much less effective keeping it out than keeping it in.%A0 Please show me where he said healthy people should buy masks to protect themselves.

---

"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection," Fauci wrote.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."

---

That's some amazing scientific reasoning, The same mask that can't prevent a virus from getting to you from externally breathed air IS effective in preventing it from being internally exhaled. Are we really this stupid?

It was the same level of protection. A mask helped stop large droplets from exiting or entering your mouth and nose. It was the equivalent of having your elbow at the ready for every cough, sneeze, throat clear, etc. Ultimately the virus was easily spread through nano particles that could all but avoid most non N95 electrostatic protective face coverings.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Carlos Cruz said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.

---

Not really true. But keep in mind that if I can't prove vaccines didn't cause 4,000 deaths, you can't prove Fauci's mandates aren't responsible for beating the pandemic. Post hoc, propter hoc. So let's give credit where it's due.

---

You might want to take a look at the FOIA Fauci emails just released. There's going to be a lot of crow eating around here.

---

Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.

---

This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:

In an email on February 5, 2020, Fauci advised against wearing masks and said that face masks bought in a store would not be effective at protecting against the virus. He was replying to queries from one Sylvia Burwell, who may be to the same Sylvia Burwell who served as secretary for health and human services from 2014 to 2017.

"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection," Fauci wrote.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."

This is of course all very science based, according to Sam.

---

That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?

---

I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. %A0What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? %A0Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February? %A0

---

They are effective at preventing the spread. It says so right there in the email: "Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection."

---

He said the typical mask is not effective at keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material and recommended not wearing a mask. %A0

As we all know, he then reverses course and said cloth masks are effective. So again I ask, what science was that based on? %A0What science made him change course? %A0And does it trouble you how wrong he was?

---

They are typically much less effective keeping it out than keeping it in. That remains true. The issue here was whether healthy people should buy masks to protect themselves. Given the limited supply, he didn't think the benefit outweighed the cost in the early weeks of the pandemic.

---

Yet, that is not what he said. %A0For the third time I ask, what science was that based on? %A0What science made him change course? %A0And does it trouble you how wrong he was or that he lied to protect the mask supply?

---

I can't answer your questions because those things never happened. They're just another part of the self-contained narrative that anti-maskers repeat for their own enjoyment.

---

Please cite me to where Fauci said that masks are typically much less effective keeping it out than keeping it in.%A0 Please show me where he said healthy people should buy masks to protect themselves.

---

"Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection," Fauci wrote.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."

---

That's some amazing scientific reasoning, The same mask that can't prevent a virus from getting to you from externally breathed air IS effective in preventing it from being internally exhaled. Are we really this stupid?

It was the same level of protection. A mask helped stop large droplets from exiting or entering your mouth and nose. It was the equivalent of having your elbow at the ready for every cough, sneeze, throat clear, etc. Ultimately the virus was easily spread through nano particles that could all but avoid most non N95 electrostatic protective face coverings.

---

It's not the same level of protection. When you wear a mask, you're not just keeping your droplets from contacting other people. You're also keeping the droplets from evaporating into smaller particles which could more easily avoid other people's masks. This is why an unmasked person in a roomful of masked people is probably safer than a masked person in a roomful of unmasked people. The more people are masked, the fewer particles are in the air.

Sam: "It's not the same level of protection. When you wear a mask, you're not just keeping your droplets from contacting other people. You're also keeping the droplets from evaporating into smaller particles which could more easily avoid other people's masks. This is why an unmasked person in a roomful of masked people is probably safer than a masked person in a roomful of unmasked people. The more people are masked, the fewer particles are in the air."

What gets lost is the probability that someone is infected. If someone is not infected, there is 0% chance of transmission by definition. What got out of hand was the assumption that requiring everyone to mask up everywhere, all the time would somehow prevent the virus from spreading. The data indicates that assumption was false, and also that front-line essential workers, who should have caught the virus more often since they were exposed to the general public in order to do their jobs, did not show evidence that such exposure led to significantly more infection.

Ergo, we would have done better to use protocols and practices employed in past pandemics.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.

---

It's a quote. What's your interpretation?

---

What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.

---

This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.

---

It's more a lack of honesty on your part than anything. You've always been an apologist for Fauci. Just didn't realize how willing you were to lie for him.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?

---

Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.

The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.

---

Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.

---

"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data. The science about how the virus functions does not change with polling data. That was irresponsible, at best, on his part.

---

Yup. No doubt Sam will come to the defense of that behavior.

Of course, privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being man-made while burying the theory publicly shortly thereafter, only to reverse course again just last week, is an even bigger concern.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.

---

It's a quote. What's your interpretation?

---

What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.

---

This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.

---

It's more a lack of honesty on your part than anything. You've always been an apologist for Fauci. Just didn't realize how willing you were to lie for him.

---

You didn't? I'd have given you 100/1 odds that Sam would be dishonest to support the little tyrant. That's a critical piece of his security blanket.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.

---

It's a quote. What's your interpretation?

---

What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.

---

This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.

---

It's more a lack of honesty on your part than anything. You've always been an apologist for Fauci. Just didn't realize how willing you were to lie for him.

---

You didn't? I'd have given you 100/1 odds that Sam would be dishonest to support the little tyrant. That's a critical piece of his security blanket.

---

That's rather harsh. I'd say it is more likely that Sam chose to believe Dr. Fauci, and does not want to look too closely at the contradictions in his behavior and statements since last year, much less his support for funding the WIV for gain of function research.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.

---

It's a quote. What's your interpretation?

---

What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.

---

This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.

---

It's more a lack of honesty on your part than anything. You've always been an apologist for Fauci. Just didn't realize how willing you were to lie for him.

---

You didn't? I'd have given you 100/1 odds that Sam would be dishonest to support the little tyrant. That's a critical piece of his security blanket.

---

That's rather harsh. I'd say it is more likely that Sam chose to believe Dr. Fauci, and does not want to look too closely at the contradictions in his behavior and statements since last year, much less his support for funding the WIV for gain of function research.

---

While this is a much more civil way of putting it, the bolded part is a significant understatement.

Turning a blind eye would more aptly describe his behavior.

I'm glad it looks like his book release and tour is on hold and the gnome may ultimately not profit any more than he already has from the pandemic.

I'm not a fan of congressional investigations as the typically turn into a partisan sideshow, but maybe they could do a good one into the origins of COVID-19. One could hope anyway....

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.

---

It's a quote. What's your interpretation?

---

What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.

---

This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.

---

It's more a lack of honesty on your part than anything. You've always been an apologist for Fauci. Just didn't realize how willing you were to lie for him.

---

You didn't? I'd have given you 100/1 odds that Sam would be dishonest to support the little tyrant. That's a critical piece of his security blanket.

---

That's rather harsh. I'd say it is more likely that Sam chose to believe Dr. Fauci, and does not want to look too closely at the contradictions in his behavior and statements since last year, much less his support for funding the WIV for gain of function research.

---

While this is a much more civil way of putting it, the bolded part is a significant understatement.

Turning a blind eye would more aptly describe his behavior.

---

If you want to have a conversation with Sam, civility matters. And it occurs to me that we all will look at facts in the light we prefer,

Personally, I have never trusted someone with power who was never elected, who is documented to have knowingly made false statements for political reasons, and whose behavior when challenged is eerily similar to Speaker Pelosi during her tantrum-time-of-the-month, but it's important to distinguish between the evil charlatan and the people who hoped he was as wise as he claimed to be.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.

---

It's a quote. What's your interpretation?

---

What you quoted was not Fauci saying that masks are effective keeping COVID out, Instead, Fauci downplayed their effectiveness, saying that masks may have "slight" effectiveness, if any, at preventing someone who is already sick with COVID from spreading saliva droplets which may have the virus. Your interpretation that he said masks are effective at keeping COVID out or that everyone should mask up are lies.

---

This is a reading comprehension issue. Not gonna argue further.

---

It's more a lack of honesty on your part than anything. You've always been an apologist for Fauci. Just didn't realize how willing you were to lie for him.

---

You didn't? I'd have given you 100/1 odds that Sam would be dishonest to support the little tyrant. That's a critical piece of his security blanket.

---

That's rather harsh. I'd say it is more likely that Sam chose to believe Dr. Fauci, and does not want to look too closely at the contradictions in his behavior and statements since last year, much less his support for funding the WIV for gain of function research.

---

While this is a much more civil way of putting it, the bolded part is a significant understatement.

Turning a blind eye would more aptly describe his behavior.

---

If you want to have a conversation with Sam, civility matters. And it occurs to me that we all will look at facts in the light we prefer,

Personally, I have never trusted someone with power who was never elected, who is documented to have knowingly made false statements for political reasons, and whose behavior when challenged is eerily similar to Speaker Pelosi during her tantrum-time-of-the-month, but it's important to distinguish between the evil charlatan and the people who hoped he was as wise as he claimed to be.

---

Don't disagree, Sam and I have sparred civilly for 20 years and probably agree more often than not. But there is a difference to me between interpreting facts to fit your narrative, and twisting them. We are all guilty of that at times, but Sam is guilty of that here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "It's not the same level of protection. When you wear a mask, you're not just keeping your droplets from contacting other people. You're also keeping the droplets from evaporating into smaller particles which could more easily avoid other people's masks. This is why an unmasked person in a roomful of masked people is probably safer than a masked person in a roomful of unmasked people. The more people are masked, the fewer particles are in the air."

What gets lost is the probability that someone is infected. If someone is not infected, there is 0% chance of transmission by definition. What got out of hand was the assumption that requiring everyone to mask up everywhere, all the time would somehow prevent the virus from spreading. The data indicates that assumption was false, and also that front-line essential workers, who should have caught the virus more often since they were exposed to the general public in order to do their jobs, did not show evidence that such exposure led to significantly more infection.

Ergo, we would have done better to use protocols and practices employed in past pandemics.

---

There was no way to know who was infected and who wasn't. Masking the general public was the only option.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?

---

Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.

The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.

---

Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.

---

"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data.

---

Completely false.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "It's not the same level of protection. When you wear a mask, you're not just keeping your droplets from contacting other people. You're also keeping the droplets from evaporating into smaller particles which could more easily avoid other people's masks. This is why an unmasked person in a roomful of masked people is probably safer than a masked person in a roomful of unmasked people. The more people are masked, the fewer particles are in the air."

What gets lost is the probability that someone is infected. If someone is not infected, there is 0% chance of transmission by definition. What got out of hand was the assumption that requiring everyone to mask up everywhere, all the time would somehow prevent the virus from spreading. The data indicates that assumption was false, and also that front-line essential workers, who should have caught the virus more often since they were exposed to the general public in order to do their jobs, did not show evidence that such exposure led to significantly more infection.

Ergo, we would have done better to use protocols and practices employed in past pandemics.

---

There was no way to know who was infected and who wasn't. Masking the general public was the only option.

---

Not true. We could have treated this the way we handled SARs or Legionnaires disease, for example. It was stupid on steroids to make panic official policy.

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?

---

Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.

The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.

---

Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.

---

"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data. The science about how the virus functions does not change with polling data. That was irresponsible, at best, on his part.

---

Yup. No doubt Sam will come to the defense of that behavior.

Of course, privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being man-made while burying the theory publicly shortly thereafter, only to reverse course again just last week, is an even bigger concern.

---

Considering all possibilities before reaching a conclusion is not scandalous behavior. It's what scientists are supposed to do.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?

---

Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.

The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.

---

Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.

---

"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data.

---

Completely false.

---

No it's not. When Fauci admits that his statements on this issue were influenced by "his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks," that is a problem.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?

---

Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.

The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.

---

Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.

---

"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data.

---

Completely false.

---

It is straight from the horse'smouth.
Direct quote from him in public interview.
It is only completely false if the interview was a deep fake video. It wasn't.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "It's not the same level of protection. When you wear a mask, you're not just keeping your droplets from contacting other people. You're also keeping the droplets from evaporating into smaller particles which could more easily avoid other people's masks. This is why an unmasked person in a roomful of masked people is probably safer than a masked person in a roomful of unmasked people. The more people are masked, the fewer particles are in the air."

What gets lost is the probability that someone is infected. If someone is not infected, there is 0% chance of transmission by definition. What got out of hand was the assumption that requiring everyone to mask up everywhere, all the time would somehow prevent the virus from spreading. The data indicates that assumption was false, and also that front-line essential workers, who should have caught the virus more often since they were exposed to the general public in order to do their jobs, did not show evidence that such exposure led to significantly more infection.

Ergo, we would have done better to use protocols and practices employed in past pandemics.

---

There was no way to know who was infected and who wasn't. Masking the general public was the only option.

---

Not true. We could have treated this the way we handled SARs or Legionnaires disease, for example. It was stupid on steroids to make panic official policy.

---

Nope.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/the-original-sars-virus-disappeared-heres-why-coronavirus-wont-do-the-same-138177

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?

---

Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.

The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.

---

Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.

---

"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data. The science about how the virus functions does not change with polling data. That was irresponsible, at best, on his part.

---

Yup. No doubt Sam will come to the defense of that behavior.

Of course, privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being man-made while burying the theory publicly shortly thereafter, only to reverse course again just last week, is an even bigger concern.

---

Considering all possibilities before reaching a conclusion is not scandalous behavior. It's what scientists are supposed to do.

---

If that were all that happened, I would agree with you. But as you well know, that's not all that happened. Fauci buried the theory publicly to the point that social media platforms were canceling those who suggested a man-made origin, only to reverse course again last week when he said that it was a possibility the virus is man-made. That is irresponsible behavior at best.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?

---

Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.

The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.

---

Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.

---

"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data.

---

Completely false.

---

It is straight from the horses mouth.
Direct quote from him in public interview.
It is only completely false if the interview was a deep fake video. It wasn't.

---

Here it is:

"When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Fauci said. "Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85."

Pretty damning.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?

---

Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.

The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.

---

Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.

---

"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data.

---

Completely false.

---

It is straight from the horses mouth.
Direct quote from him in public interview.
It is only completely false if the interview was a deep fake video. It wasn't.

---

We've both seen and discussed the video. You know by now that he was working with new scientific information, not just polling data.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?

---

Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.

The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.

---

Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.

---

"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data.

---

Completely false.

---

It is straight from the horses mouth.
Direct quote from him in public interview.
It is only completely false if the interview was a deep fake video. It wasn't.

---

We've both seen and discussed the video. You know by now that he was working with new scientific information, not just polling data.

---

His words: "Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85."

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?

---

Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.

The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.

---

Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.

---

"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data. The science about how the virus functions does not change with polling data. That was irresponsible, at best, on his part.

---

Yup. No doubt Sam will come to the defense of that behavior.

Of course, privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being man-made while burying the theory publicly shortly thereafter, only to reverse course again just last week, is an even bigger concern.

---

Considering all possibilities before reaching a conclusion is not scandalous behavior. It's what scientists are supposed to do.

---

If that were all that happened, I would agree with you. But as you well know, that's not all that happened. Fauci buried the theory publicly to the point that social media platforms were canceling those who suggested a man-made origin, only to reverse course again last week when he said that it was a possibility the virus is man-made. That is irresponsible behavior at best.

---

Fauci isn't responsible for social media. Reversing course is also appropriate based on new information, in this case regarding the poor safety protocols at the lab. Though it should be said, he still thinks the virus probably evolved naturally.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?

---

Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.

The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.

---

Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.

---

"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data. The science about how the virus functions does not change with polling data. That was irresponsible, at best, on his part.

---

Yup. No doubt Sam will come to the defense of that behavior.

Of course, privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being man-made while burying the theory publicly shortly thereafter, only to reverse course again just last week, is an even bigger concern.

---

Considering all possibilities before reaching a conclusion is not scandalous behavior. It's what scientists are supposed to do.

---

If that were all that happened, I would agree with you. But as you well know, that's not all that happened. Fauci buried the theory publicly to the point that social media platforms were canceling those who suggested a man-made origin, only to reverse course again last week when he said that it was a possibility the virus is man-made. That is irresponsible behavior at best.

---

Fauci isn't responsible for social media. Reversing course is also appropriate based on new information, in this case regarding the poor safety protocols at the lab. Though it should be said, he still thinks the virus probably evolved naturally.

---

One of his problems is that he thinks he is.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.

Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.

Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available.

Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders.

---

I don't really disagree with any of that.

But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.

---

I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

How does your post have anything to do with anything? If only actual science was becoming a part of pop culture lol... Star Trek might have guessed right on quite a few things, probably about as close as it gets? Or are you watching Kim K's makeup secrets and thinking it's pop science?

---

Are you kidding? #followthescience is the new pop religion. Fauci is the interim pope. The great thing about this new pop science - it is as flexible as politics. Don't mask (wait, that was an intentional lie). Mask. Double mask. Herd immunity is at 30, no 60 no 70, no 80, well it depends on how many people I think might get vaccinated.

The one thing a scientist can't do - buck the popular trends. That'll get your ass castigated by the media, big tech, and social media. Don't say anything that is anti-lockdown or anti-vax. We've replaced religion and science with #followthescience. The great thing about it is that it means whatever you want it to mean. As long as it makes everyone feel safe and bow to acceptable politics.

---

Oh man, you've got a lot going on there. I'll let you finish, but scientists always said 70-90%, before the first vaccine was announced. Stop watching your popsci.

---

"The Good Doctor" specifically said that he changed what he was saying publicly about the level of vaccination needed for herd immunity based on polling data. The science about how the virus functions does not change with polling data. That was irresponsible, at best, on his part.

---

Yup. No doubt Sam will come to the defense of that behavior.

Of course, privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being man-made while burying the theory publicly shortly thereafter, only to reverse course again just last week, is an even bigger concern.

---

Considering all possibilities before reaching a conclusion is not scandalous behavior. It's what scientists are supposed to do.

---

If that were all that happened, I would agree with you. But as you well know, that's not all that happened. Fauci buried the theory publicly to the point that social media platforms were canceling those who suggested a man-made origin, only to reverse course again last week when he said that it was a possibility the virus is man-made. That is irresponsible behavior at best.

---

Fauci isn't responsible for social media. Reversing course is also appropriate based on new information, in this case regarding the poor safety protocols at the lab. Though it should be said, he still thinks the virus probably evolved naturally.

---

Publicly burying the possibility - to the point of suggesting those who spread it are conspiracy theorists - and then completely reversing course is irresponsible, however you want to spin it.

Fauci knew of the poor safety protocols years ago.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.

Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.

Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available.

Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders.

---

I don't really disagree with any of that.

But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.

---

I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.

---

LOL. No, you would just find a way to spin his dishonest statements like you always do.

There is a direct quote above in which he admitted he considered polling data in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity. That should raise red flags with any reasonable person.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The guy can get all the airtime he wants so if his reasoning for a book was to get his views out, that's bs.

He's profiting off a pandemic. It's gross.

---

Why is that gross? He wrote a book about his part in a modern phenomenon. You act like you wish nobody made money during the pandemic, but not too many want us to still be shut down.

---

Because Fauci is The Scientist. If he makes a mistake, science is bad. If we throw him down a waterfall, science goes away. Science must be punished.

---

You have quite a narrow pop culture view of science.

Unsurprising.

---

I think you miss Sam's point, Robert. Fauci is not wrong because Science is wrong, he is wrong because Fauci used his position to advance his own interests at the expense of credible medical leadership.

Fauci's flip-flop on masks, for instance, was egregious not because he changed his opinion as more information came in, but because Fauci admitted his reason for initially saying masks were not needed was on the assumption that advocating everyone wear masks would increase fear in the public and cause difficulty for medical workers to get enough masks. To say so demonstrated a callous disregard for both public safety and his responsibility to be straight with the public.

Fauci also worked to suppress opinions from front-line doctors who were actually treating COVID patients, again to advance his influence and the CDC rather than provide the best available information to the public as it became available.

Fauci is a self-serving hypocrite, who at minimum played a role in creating the environment for the virus to escape containment by using NIH money for gain of function research in Wuhan while hiding that action from government leaders.

---

I don't really disagree with any of that.

But Sam's point is just a pathetic attempt to act like if you disagree with Fauci you must be a knuckle-dragging cretin who doesn't agree with "science" in general.

---

I'd be impressed if someone could articulate a real disagreement. The obsession with this man appears to be such that all powers of reason and comprehension disappear in his wake.

---

LOL. No, you would just find a way to spin his dishonest statements like you always do.

There is a direct quote above in which he admitted he considered polling data in determining what to tell the public about herd immunity. That should raise red flags with any reasonable person.

---

It did raise a red flag. That's why I went and found out what he actually said.