Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.
-
@george-k said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
But their clash was all heat and no light.
It's important to preface it that way, before essentially agreeing with Dr Paul throughout the rest of the piece. We are talking about the WaPo readership, after all.
-
-
Never forget, Fauci is not a virologist.
-
According to one epidemiologist I’ve heard, Gain of Function has been obsolete for over a decade now. There is no need to track possible pathways for a virus to travel when it’s DNA can be mapped within a couple of weeks and mRNA vaccines can be created within a couple of months. There is no longer a reasonable purpose for this type of research (if there ever was).
-
@jolly said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
Never forget, Fauci is not a virologist.
Is Rand Paul?
@axtremus said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
@jolly said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
Never forget, Fauci is not a virologist.
Is Rand Paul?
Rand Paul is an M.D., not director of NIAID. Interestingly enough, Paul has actually worked as a doctor and treated patients, whereas Fauci has never done retail medicine. OTOH, Redfield, who is a virologist, thinks Fauci has ignored the lab leak explanation from the start, for reasons known only to Fauci.
What we do know, is that Fauci sent money to China for gain of function research. We also know that Fauci was well aware of the risk of such research and was perfectly willing to let people die, if a virus escaped, since he thought the research was that important.
-
@axtremus said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
@jolly said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
Never forget, Fauci is not a virologist.
Is Rand Paul?
Rand Paul is an M.D., not director of NIAID. Interestingly enough, Paul has actually worked as a doctor and treated patients, whereas Fauci has never done retail medicine. OTOH, Redfield, who is a virologist, thinks Fauci has ignored the lab leak explanation from the start, for reasons known only to Fauci.
What we do know, is that Fauci sent money to China for gain of function research. We also know that Fauci was well aware of the risk of such research and was perfectly willing to let people die, if a virus escaped, since he thought the research was that important.
@jolly said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
We also know that Fauci was well aware of the risk of such research and was perfectly willing to let people die, if a virus escaped, since he thought the research was that important.
Just to save y'all the trouble: https://nypost.com/2021/05/28/fauci-once-argued-viral-experiments-worth-the-risk-of-pandemic/
In the article, first reported by The Australian, Fauci also noted that a pause on such studies should continue until researchers can figure out how to do them more transparently.
Gain-of-function experiments are the sort of work that was being conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology when the COVID-19 pandemic first started in China in late 2019 and some experts fear a lab accident is what led to the global outbreak that killed 3.4 million.
In the 2012 paper, Fauci acknowledged the risky research could lead to serious lab accidents but the chance is rare and the work is “important” because it helps the scientific community prepare for naturally occurring pandemics.
“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” he wrote at the time.
“Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision? Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”
-
@jolly said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
We also know that Fauci was well aware of the risk of such research and was perfectly willing to let people die, if a virus escaped, since he thought the research was that important.
Just to save y'all the trouble: https://nypost.com/2021/05/28/fauci-once-argued-viral-experiments-worth-the-risk-of-pandemic/
In the article, first reported by The Australian, Fauci also noted that a pause on such studies should continue until researchers can figure out how to do them more transparently.
Gain-of-function experiments are the sort of work that was being conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology when the COVID-19 pandemic first started in China in late 2019 and some experts fear a lab accident is what led to the global outbreak that killed 3.4 million.
In the 2012 paper, Fauci acknowledged the risky research could lead to serious lab accidents but the chance is rare and the work is “important” because it helps the scientific community prepare for naturally occurring pandemics.
“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” he wrote at the time.
“Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision? Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”
@george-k said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
@jolly said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
We also know that Fauci was well aware of the risk of such research and was perfectly willing to let people die, if a virus escaped, since he thought the research was that important.
Just to save y'all the trouble: https://nypost.com/2021/05/28/fauci-once-argued-viral-experiments-worth-the-risk-of-pandemic/
In the article, first reported by The Australian, Fauci also noted that a pause on such studies should continue until researchers can figure out how to do them more transparently.
Gain-of-function experiments are the sort of work that was being conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology when the COVID-19 pandemic first started in China in late 2019 and some experts fear a lab accident is what led to the global outbreak that killed 3.4 million.
In the 2012 paper, Fauci acknowledged the risky research could lead to serious lab accidents but the chance is rare and the work is “important” because it helps the scientific community prepare for naturally occurring pandemics.
“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” he wrote at the time.
“Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision? Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”
I was working off of memory. I didn't think Ax's silliness was worth going to the trouble to dig up a cite. You are a better man than I, Gunga Din...
-
@george-k said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
@jolly said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
We also know that Fauci was well aware of the risk of such research and was perfectly willing to let people die, if a virus escaped, since he thought the research was that important.
Just to save y'all the trouble: https://nypost.com/2021/05/28/fauci-once-argued-viral-experiments-worth-the-risk-of-pandemic/
In the article, first reported by The Australian, Fauci also noted that a pause on such studies should continue until researchers can figure out how to do them more transparently.
Gain-of-function experiments are the sort of work that was being conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology when the COVID-19 pandemic first started in China in late 2019 and some experts fear a lab accident is what led to the global outbreak that killed 3.4 million.
In the 2012 paper, Fauci acknowledged the risky research could lead to serious lab accidents but the chance is rare and the work is “important” because it helps the scientific community prepare for naturally occurring pandemics.
“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” he wrote at the time.
“Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision? Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”
I was working off of memory. I didn't think Ax's silliness was worth going to the trouble to dig up a cite. You are a better man than I, Gunga Din...
Imagine how Fauci must feel. Goldblum, the tall, cool, leather-clad scientist, being totally right about this. And Fauci, the short, over-compensating social climber with his salon tan, and the blood of four million innocent victims on this hands.
Goldblum = cool genius protector of humanity
Fauci = loser nerd mass murderer -
I think the idea is to be respectful and non combative no matter what (except in a Kavanaugh situation).
Any serious inquiry on gain of function would yield the truth which would be very favorable to Fauci. That’s why you won’t see the GOP demanding an investigation but rather just make Fauci the boogeyman. I have about 10 hours into gain of function myself and I really don’t know what Rand is talking about except I know enough that he is deliberately cherry picking and misrepresenting facts.
The real target here is red meat for the base so I just say “carry on folks”.
-
I think the idea is to be respectful and non combative no matter what (except in a Kavanaugh situation).
Any serious inquiry on gain of function would yield the truth which would be very favorable to Fauci. That’s why you won’t see the GOP demanding an investigation but rather just make Fauci the boogeyman. I have about 10 hours into gain of function myself and I really don’t know what Rand is talking about except I know enough that he is deliberately cherry picking and misrepresenting facts.
The real target here is red meat for the base so I just say “carry on folks”.
@loki said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
I think the idea is to be respectful and non combative no matter what (except in a Kavanaugh situation).
Any serious inquiry on gain of function would yield the truth which would be very favorable to Fauci. That’s why you won’t see the GOP demanding an investigation but rather just make Fauci the boogeyman. I have about 10 hours into gain of function myself and I really don’t know what Rand is talking about except I know enough that he is deliberately cherry picking and misrepresenting facts.
The real target here is red meat for the base so I just say “carry on folks”.
He hasn't presented very many facts, so you should be able to be specific about the ones he's misrepresented. Which were those?
IMO the responsibility of Fauci for four million deaths is unfair rhetoric, but it's not 'factual' one way or the other. Just a rhetorical smear.
Does Paul have a history of pandering to a base? I wouldn't have pegged him as a tribalist, as politicians go.
-
I think the idea is to be respectful and non combative no matter what (except in a Kavanaugh situation).
Any serious inquiry on gain of function would yield the truth which would be very favorable to Fauci. That’s why you won’t see the GOP demanding an investigation but rather just make Fauci the boogeyman. I have about 10 hours into gain of function myself and I really don’t know what Rand is talking about except I know enough that he is deliberately cherry picking and misrepresenting facts.
The real target here is red meat for the base so I just say “carry on folks”.
@loki said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
I think the idea is to be respectful and non combative no matter what (except in a Kavanaugh situation).
Any serious inquiry on gain of function would yield the truth which would be very favorable to Fauci. That’s why you won’t see the GOP demanding an investigation but rather just make Fauci the boogeyman. I have about 10 hours into gain of function myself and I really don’t know what Rand is talking about except I know enough that he is deliberately cherry picking and misrepresenting facts.
The real target here is red meat for the base so I just say “carry on folks”.
Be more specific.
-
@loki said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
I think the idea is to be respectful and non combative no matter what (except in a Kavanaugh situation).
Any serious inquiry on gain of function would yield the truth which would be very favorable to Fauci. That’s why you won’t see the GOP demanding an investigation but rather just make Fauci the boogeyman. I have about 10 hours into gain of function myself and I really don’t know what Rand is talking about except I know enough that he is deliberately cherry picking and misrepresenting facts.
The real target here is red meat for the base so I just say “carry on folks”.
He hasn't presented very many facts, so you should be able to be specific about the ones he's misrepresented. Which were those?
IMO the responsibility of Fauci for four million deaths is unfair rhetoric, but it's not 'factual' one way or the other. Just a rhetorical smear.
Does Paul have a history of pandering to a base? I wouldn't have pegged him as a tribalist, as politicians go.
@horace said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
@loki said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
I think the idea is to be respectful and non combative no matter what (except in a Kavanaugh situation).
Any serious inquiry on gain of function would yield the truth which would be very favorable to Fauci. That’s why you won’t see the GOP demanding an investigation but rather just make Fauci the boogeyman. I have about 10 hours into gain of function myself and I really don’t know what Rand is talking about except I know enough that he is deliberately cherry picking and misrepresenting facts.
The real target here is red meat for the base so I just say “carry on folks”.
He hasn't presented very many facts, so you should be able to be specific about the ones he's misrepresented. Which were those?
IMO the responsibility of Fauci for four million deaths is unfair rhetoric, but it's not 'factual' one way or the other. Just a rhetorical smear.
Does Paul have a history of pandering to a base? I wouldn't have pegged him as a tribalist, as politicians go.
First example, you tell me how much money we actually gave to the Wuhan Lab vs what Rand said. Hint the numbers are vastly different.
Second, tell me about the history of gain of function research and what was different or unusual about what we did with Wuhan?
Honestly I am very ambivalent about gain of function, I see the pluses and minuses but the long history is there so I would be most interested in anything Fauci did that was DIFFERENT and I can’t find it. If there is a smoking gun difference I would agree, off with his head.
-
@horace said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
@loki said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
I think the idea is to be respectful and non combative no matter what (except in a Kavanaugh situation).
Any serious inquiry on gain of function would yield the truth which would be very favorable to Fauci. That’s why you won’t see the GOP demanding an investigation but rather just make Fauci the boogeyman. I have about 10 hours into gain of function myself and I really don’t know what Rand is talking about except I know enough that he is deliberately cherry picking and misrepresenting facts.
The real target here is red meat for the base so I just say “carry on folks”.
He hasn't presented very many facts, so you should be able to be specific about the ones he's misrepresented. Which were those?
IMO the responsibility of Fauci for four million deaths is unfair rhetoric, but it's not 'factual' one way or the other. Just a rhetorical smear.
Does Paul have a history of pandering to a base? I wouldn't have pegged him as a tribalist, as politicians go.
First example, you tell me how much money we actually gave to the Wuhan Lab vs what Rand said. Hint the numbers are vastly different.
Second, tell me about the history of gain of function research and what was different or unusual about what we did with Wuhan?
Honestly I am very ambivalent about gain of function, I see the pluses and minuses but the long history is there so I would be most interested in anything Fauci did that was DIFFERENT and I can’t find it. If there is a smoking gun difference I would agree, off with his head.
@loki said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
@horace said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
@loki said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
I think the idea is to be respectful and non combative no matter what (except in a Kavanaugh situation).
Any serious inquiry on gain of function would yield the truth which would be very favorable to Fauci. That’s why you won’t see the GOP demanding an investigation but rather just make Fauci the boogeyman. I have about 10 hours into gain of function myself and I really don’t know what Rand is talking about except I know enough that he is deliberately cherry picking and misrepresenting facts.
The real target here is red meat for the base so I just say “carry on folks”.
He hasn't presented very many facts, so you should be able to be specific about the ones he's misrepresented. Which were those?
IMO the responsibility of Fauci for four million deaths is unfair rhetoric, but it's not 'factual' one way or the other. Just a rhetorical smear.
Does Paul have a history of pandering to a base? I wouldn't have pegged him as a tribalist, as politicians go.
First example, you tell me how much money we actually gave to the Wuhan Lab vs what Rand said. Hint the numbers are vastly different.
Second, tell me about the history of gain of function research and what was different or unusual about what we did with Wuhan?
I asked you to substantiate your claim. I didn't ask for homework to substantiate it for you.
Honestly I am very ambivalent about gain of function, I see the pluses and minuses but the long history is there so I would be most interested in anything Fauci did that was DIFFERENT and I can’t find it. If there is a smoking gun difference I would agree, off with his head.
I think the main idea is that the buck stops somewhere.
You accused Dr Paul of misrepresenting facts. In your opinion, as informed by your 10 hours of research, was Dr Fauci misrepresenting facts when he denied that the paper from Wuhan was GoF research? The WaPo writer said Fauci was being truthful only on a technicality, based on a new definition of the term. Based on your 10 hours of research, do you think Fauci was being disingenuous?
-
Horace,
NIH said it wasn’t gain of function research, so I don’t know what to tell you except that Paul ought to get that investigation going to NIH as well to find the real culprit. Alternatively I would be open to scientists on both sides and see how large they are on each side and have it play out.
Are you ready to indict our National Institutes of Health?
-
Horace,
NIH said it wasn’t gain of function research, so I don’t know what to tell you except that Paul ought to get that investigation going to NIH as well to find the real culprit. Alternatively I would be open to scientists on both sides and see how large they are on each side and have it play out.
Are you ready to indict our National Institutes of Health?
@loki said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
Horace,
NIH said it wasn’t gain of function research, so I don’t know what to tell you except that Paul ought to get that investigation going to NIH as well to find the real culprit. Alternatively I would be open to scientists on both sides and see how large they are on each side and have it play out.
The WaPo piece upthread went into this. Did you read it?
Other scientists, even those who believe the lab leak theory likely, argue that Fauci is technically correct, although they note that the official definition is so narrow it enables anyone to avoid the review process Fauci himself helped to establish. In other words, if the oversight system for reviewing risky research is almost never used, what good is it?
That's why I asked you whether you thought Fauci was misrepresenting anything. Do you understand my question?
