It appears to me you are describing your own brand of scientific reasoning (or rather lack thereof). Of course, as we all know, if the CDC or Fauci said it, you would swallow it down like gin at a sorority party.Sam Lowry said:
Just having some fun with Mothra's signature brand of scientific reasoning. Point is he's not really in a position to say what's science and what isn't.
Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
Raheem, you missed the money line.... 'Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory'
— 🇺🇸 Afterseven ✝️ (@Afterseven) June 2, 2021
Which is to say, 100% of the people who looked it it found it did not evolve and thus was engineered.
I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February?Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
Jacques Strap said:Raheem, you missed the money line.... 'Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory'
— 🇺🇸 Afterseven ✝️ (@Afterseven) June 2, 2021
Which is to say, 100% of the people who looked it it found it did not evolve and thus was engineered.
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."Mothra said:I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February?Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said:I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February?Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
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.Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said:I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February?Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
As we all know, he then reverses course and said cloth masks are effective. So again I ask, what science was that based on? What science made him change course? And does it trouble you how wrong he was?
If you're referring to the tweet quoted above, that's not what they said.Mothra said:And of course now we have the statements by the scientists advising him that they believed the virus was genetically modified or created. Yet he denied that repeatedly. Troubling...Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said:I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February?Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
What did they say then, Sam?Sam Lowry said:If you're referring to the tweet quoted above, that's not what they said.Mothra said:And of course now we have the statements by the scientists advising him that they believed the virus was genetically modified or created. Yet he denied that repeatedly. Troubling...Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said:I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February?Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
Yet, that is not what he said. For the third time I ask, what science was that based on? What science made him change course? And does it trouble you how wrong he was or that he lied to protect the mask supply?Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said:I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February?Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
As we all know, he then reverses course and said cloth masks are effective. So again I ask, what science was that based on? What science made him change course? And does it trouble you how wrong he was?
Like it says in the email, they weren't sure.Mothra said:What did they say then, Sam?Sam Lowry said:If you're referring to the tweet quoted above, that's not what they said.Mothra said:And of course now we have the statements by the scientists advising him that they believed the virus was genetically modified or created. Yet he denied that repeatedly. Troubling...Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said:I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February?Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
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.Mothra said:Yet, that is not what he said. For the third time I ask, what science was that based on? What science made him change course? And does it trouble you how wrong he was or that he lied to protect the mask supply?Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said:I am more interested in the science behind it, as I thought you were. What science do you think made him reverse course and change his mind saying that any facial covering should be effective at preventing the spread? Does it trouble you that the head of our COVID response could have been so wrong on the subject back in February?Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
As we all know, he then reverses course and said cloth masks are effective. So again I ask, what science was that based on? What science made him change course? And does it trouble you how wrong he was?
They found inconsistencies. The question is why.Mothra said:
No, that is not what they said. Let me help you out:
"Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory." They then said that was their opinion "at the time," which they acknowledged could change based on additional research.
As we know, Fauci then went on to completely dismiss this opinion in statements around a month later. We of course don't know why, or what science that was based on. Yet.
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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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. %A0Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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? %A0Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
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?
Quote:
The news media, in its zealous policing of the boundaries of the permissible, insisted that Russiagate was ever so true but that the lab-leak hypothesis was false false false, and woe unto anyone who dared disagree. Reporters gulped down whatever line was most flattering to the experts they were quoting and then insisted that it was 100% right and absolutely incontrovertible that anything else was only unhinged Trumpist folly, that democracy dies when unbelievers get to speak, and so on.
Like it says in the first paragraph of the email, they thought it was engineered.Sam Lowry said:They found inconsistencies. The question is why.Mothra said:
No, that is not what they said. Let me help you out:
"Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory." They then said that was their opinion "at the time," which they acknowledged could change based on additional research.
As we know, Fauci then went on to completely dismiss this opinion in statements around a month later. We of course don't know why, or what science that was based on. Yet.
"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.Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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. %A0Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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? %A0Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
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?
You're not understanding the email.Mothra said:Like it says in the first paragraph of the email, they thought it was engineered.Sam Lowry said:They found inconsistencies. The question is why.Mothra said:
No, that is not what they said. Let me help you out:
"Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory." They then said that was their opinion "at the time," which they acknowledged could change based on additional research.
As we know, Fauci then went on to completely dismiss this opinion in statements around a month later. We of course don't know why, or what science that was based on. Yet.
The question is what changed their opinions, if anything?
Quite the Kool-Aid franchise you have there, Sam.Sam Lowry said:You're not understanding the email.Mothra said:Like it says in the first paragraph of the email, they thought it was engineered.Sam Lowry said:They found inconsistencies. The question is why.Mothra said:
No, that is not what they said. Let me help you out:
"Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory." They then said that was their opinion "at the time," which they acknowledged could change based on additional research.
As we know, Fauci then went on to completely dismiss this opinion in statements around a month later. We of course don't know why, or what science that was based on. Yet.
The question is what changed their opinions, if anything?
If you want the basis of Fauci's later public remarks, it's cited here: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-throws-cold-water-conspiracy-theory-coronavirus-escaped-chinese-lab-2020-4?render-embed=video
I understand the email well.Sam Lowry said:You're not understanding the email.Mothra said:Like it says in the first paragraph of the email, they thought it was engineered.Sam Lowry said:They found inconsistencies. The question is why.Mothra said:
No, that is not what they said. Let me help you out:
"Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory." They then said that was their opinion "at the time," which they acknowledged could change based on additional research.
As we know, Fauci then went on to completely dismiss this opinion in statements around a month later. We of course don't know why, or what science that was based on. Yet.
The question is what changed their opinions, if anything?
If you want the basis of Fauci's later public remarks, it's cited here: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-throws-cold-water-conspiracy-theory-coronavirus-escaped-chinese-lab-2020-4?render-embed=video
Just yesterday Amazon was touting Dr. Fauci's upcoming book release.
— Brad Slager - Social Toper and Media Antagonist (@MartiniShark) June 2, 2021
Today...memory-holed. pic.twitter.com/mVtTF4RzYA
It's a quote. What's your interpretation?Mothra said:
As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.
Sam Lowry said:"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.Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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. %A0Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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? %A0Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
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?
"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."
Robert Wilson said:
So are y'all going to use this thread to discuss the emails that show that Fauci was privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being manmade while burying the theory publicly back in 2020, and being patted on the back for it by the guy steering US funding to the Wuhan lab? Or will that be another thread?
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.Sam Lowry said:It's a quote. What's your interpretation?Mothra said:
As I suspected. That's of course not what he said, but it is a very self-serving interpretation.
What's really interesting is that after receiving that email from Kristian suggesting the virus exhibits qualities that appear man-made, the next day he sent an email to a colleague wherein he appeared very alarmed and attached a document that talked about gain of function research that was being performed by one of his colleagues in collaboration with one of the scientists at the lab. It certainly appears he was very concerned with the possibility that the virus may have been genetically engineered and that he would have egg on his face (or perhaps more aptly, blood on his hands) if it got out.Robert Wilson said:
So are y'all going to use this thread to discuss the emails that show that Fauci was privately discussing the plausibility of the virus being manmade while burying the theory publicly back in 2020, and being patted on the back for it by the guy steering US funding to the Wuhan lab? Or will that be another thread?
JXL said:Sam Lowry said:"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.Mothra said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said: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. %A0Sam Lowry said: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."Mothra said: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? %A0Sam Lowry said:That is interesting. Whodathunk he'd email the exact same thing he said in public?Mothra said:This exchange, on the effectiveness of masks, is interesting:Carlos Cruz said:Let the crow eating begin today. Zerohedge will be in front on this story.Doc Holliday said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.Mothra said:As we so often found with Fauci, science had little to do with his mandates.Sam Lowry said: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.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.
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.
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?
"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?
