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.:
@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?
-
@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?
-
Bump for @loki
Did you see the part about how the definition of GoF was recently made so narrow as to describe almost nothing? Based on your 10 hours of research, do you find that to be a true claim, or a false one? Can people like Dr Paul go around calling things GoF, even if those things could be argued to not fall within the NIH's current definition of GoF? Is there room for this sort of difference between common usage or historical usage of a term, and a newer definition, which may be for the purpose of reducing an obligation to avoid funding the practice?
-
@horace said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
Bump for @loki
Did you see the part about how the definition of GoF was recently made so narrow as to describe almost nothing? Based on your 10 hours of research, do you find that to be a true claim, or a false one? Can people like Dr Paul go around calling things GoF, even if those things could be argued to not fall within the NIH's current definition of GoF? Is there room for this sort of difference between common usage or historical usage of a term, and a newer definition, which may be for the purpose of reducing an obligation to avoid funding the practice?
Your initial question was whether I thought Fauci lied, now you are talking about an academic question and we don’t even know how many “other” scientists there are and what their credentials are. Certainly it sounds like perjury is off the table. Again, what are you skewering him for?
-
Lying. Political weaselization.
-
@jolly said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
Lying. Political weaselization.
https://theintercept.com/2021/07/27/covid-anthony-fauci-rand-paul-research/
A worthy read to help dispassionate folks gain context to the political hit job vs full context and reality.
Kangaroo courts are great for folks who have no interest in the truth.
-
@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.:
Bump for @loki
Did you see the part about how the definition of GoF was recently made so narrow as to describe almost nothing? Based on your 10 hours of research, do you find that to be a true claim, or a false one? Can people like Dr Paul go around calling things GoF, even if those things could be argued to not fall within the NIH's current definition of GoF? Is there room for this sort of difference between common usage or historical usage of a term, and a newer definition, which may be for the purpose of reducing an obligation to avoid funding the practice?
Your initial question was whether I thought Fauci lied,
I asked whether you thought he misrepresented the truth. Especially relative to your claim that Paul misrepresented the truth.
I know how easy it is to say "both sides are garbage", so I wanted to get a relative view of your claims. Certainly, you seemed to come down on Fauci's side, on the issue of which person was being more truthful.
now you are talking about an academic question
No, Loki, please try to follow along, here. Doctor Fauci turned it into an academic question when he rested on the newly fashioned, politicized and legalized definition of GoF. The point made in the WaPo article is that Paul was using a more common scientific sense usage of the term. You've done 10 hours of research on the subject, so I was curious what your take was.
and we don’t even know how many “other” scientists there are and what their credentials are. Certainly it sounds like perjury is off the table. Again, what are you skewering him for?
I'm having a bit of fun with the tribal condemnations. In reality, I think he's a political weasel social climber, and a buck is going to stop at his desk real soon. I won't be pretending to have empathy for such a critter.
-
@loki 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.:
Lying. Political weaselization.
https://theintercept.com/2021/07/27/covid-anthony-fauci-rand-paul-research/
A worthy read to help dispassionate folks gain context to the political hit job vs full context and reality.
Kangaroo courts are great for folks who have no interest in the truth.
lol. Say, Loki, did you find any political bent to that article or was it completely dispassionate to your eyes?
On social networks, Republican operatives unconcerned with the facts — like Richard Grenell, the Twitter troll who served as Donald Trump’s director of national intelligence for three months — cheered on Paul’s attack.
In the wake of Paul’s attack on Fauci, several prominent scientists who question the wisdom and safety of gain-of-function experiments — in which biologists deliberately create pandemic-causing pathogens in the lab in order to better prepare to combat them should they evolve in nature — refused to speak to me on the record. One after another, they said Paul’s patently false claim that Fauci was to blame for the pandemic, and his selective outrage at gain-of-function research only when conducted in China, made it all but impossible for them to say anything about the pre-pandemic experiments in Wuhan without being vilified by partisans.
One biologist who supports such research told me that he would have liked the opportunity to correct what he called misinformation about the experiments, but had been worn down by death threats.
Lol death threats! So he can't weigh in on the Paul/Fauci debate!
What a wonderful, truth seeking article that is. Thanks for sniffing it out amidst all the politicized dreck, Loki.
-
@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.:
@jolly said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
Lying. Political weaselization.
https://theintercept.com/2021/07/27/covid-anthony-fauci-rand-paul-research/
A worthy read to help dispassionate folks gain context to the political hit job vs full context and reality.
Kangaroo courts are great for folks who have no interest in the truth.
lol. Say, Loki, did you find any political bent to that article or was it completely dispassionate to your eyes?
On social networks, Republican operatives unconcerned with the facts — like Richard Grenell, the Twitter troll who served as Donald Trump’s director of national intelligence for three months — cheered on Paul’s attack.
In the wake of Paul’s attack on Fauci, several prominent scientists who question the wisdom and safety of gain-of-function experiments — in which biologists deliberately create pandemic-causing pathogens in the lab in order to better prepare to combat them should they evolve in nature — refused to speak to me on the record. One after another, they said Paul’s patently false claim that Fauci was to blame for the pandemic, and his selective outrage at gain-of-function research only when conducted in China, made it all but impossible for them to say anything about the pre-pandemic experiments in Wuhan without being vilified by partisans.
One biologist who supports such research told me that he would have liked the opportunity to correct what he called misinformation about the experiments, but had been worn down by death threats.
Lol death threats! So he can't weigh in on the Paul/Fauci debate!
What a wonderful, truth seeking article that is. Thanks for sniffing it out amidst all the politicized dreck, Loki.
Horace- state your case for lying. Let’s see it. It’s a bunch of allegations from partisans. Let’s see it. You are the accuser. The NIH says you are wrong.
Burden of proof, right? That is still important righttttt?????
-
@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.:
@jolly said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
Lying. Political weaselization.
https://theintercept.com/2021/07/27/covid-anthony-fauci-rand-paul-research/
A worthy read to help dispassionate folks gain context to the political hit job vs full context and reality.
Kangaroo courts are great for folks who have no interest in the truth.
lol. Say, Loki, did you find any political bent to that article or was it completely dispassionate to your eyes?
On social networks, Republican operatives unconcerned with the facts — like Richard Grenell, the Twitter troll who served as Donald Trump’s director of national intelligence for three months — cheered on Paul’s attack.
In the wake of Paul’s attack on Fauci, several prominent scientists who question the wisdom and safety of gain-of-function experiments — in which biologists deliberately create pandemic-causing pathogens in the lab in order to better prepare to combat them should they evolve in nature — refused to speak to me on the record. One after another, they said Paul’s patently false claim that Fauci was to blame for the pandemic, and his selective outrage at gain-of-function research only when conducted in China, made it all but impossible for them to say anything about the pre-pandemic experiments in Wuhan without being vilified by partisans.
One biologist who supports such research told me that he would have liked the opportunity to correct what he called misinformation about the experiments, but had been worn down by death threats.
Lol death threats! So he can't weigh in on the Paul/Fauci debate!
What a wonderful, truth seeking article that is. Thanks for sniffing it out amidst all the politicized dreck, Loki.
Horace- state your case for lying. Let’s see it. It’s a bunch of allegations from partisans. Let’s see it. You are the accuser. The NIH says you are wrong.
Burden of proof, right? That is still important righttttt?????
You're not following along. We started when I asked you to substantiate your claim that Paul was misrepresenting the truth. (To which you added a nice dismissive partisan shot about how Paul was pandering to tribalists.) Actually I agree that you could call Paul's accusation about "responsibility for 4 million deaths", a misrepresentation. I wasn't expecting you to be completely incapable of answering the question. I just wondered how you would answer it. Turns out, you chose to assign me homework to answer it for you.
I never (seriously) accused Fauci of lying. I presented the case, mostly made in the WaPo piece, that he was resting on a technicality from a recent change to the NIH's definition of GoF. Again, it is difficult to have this discussion if you aren't following along.
-
@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.:
@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.:
@jolly said in Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about.:
Lying. Political weaselization.
https://theintercept.com/2021/07/27/covid-anthony-fauci-rand-paul-research/
A worthy read to help dispassionate folks gain context to the political hit job vs full context and reality.
Kangaroo courts are great for folks who have no interest in the truth.
lol. Say, Loki, did you find any political bent to that article or was it completely dispassionate to your eyes?
On social networks, Republican operatives unconcerned with the facts — like Richard Grenell, the Twitter troll who served as Donald Trump’s director of national intelligence for three months — cheered on Paul’s attack.
In the wake of Paul’s attack on Fauci, several prominent scientists who question the wisdom and safety of gain-of-function experiments — in which biologists deliberately create pandemic-causing pathogens in the lab in order to better prepare to combat them should they evolve in nature — refused to speak to me on the record. One after another, they said Paul’s patently false claim that Fauci was to blame for the pandemic, and his selective outrage at gain-of-function research only when conducted in China, made it all but impossible for them to say anything about the pre-pandemic experiments in Wuhan without being vilified by partisans.
One biologist who supports such research told me that he would have liked the opportunity to correct what he called misinformation about the experiments, but had been worn down by death threats.
Lol death threats! So he can't weigh in on the Paul/Fauci debate!
What a wonderful, truth seeking article that is. Thanks for sniffing it out amidst all the politicized dreck, Loki.
Horace- state your case for lying. Let’s see it. It’s a bunch of allegations from partisans. Let’s see it. You are the accuser. The NIH says you are wrong.
Burden of proof, right? That is still important righttttt?????
You're not following along. We started when I asked you to substantiate your claim that Paul was misrepresenting the truth. (To which you added a nice dismissive partisan shot about how Paul was pandering to tribalists.) Actually I agree that you could call Paul's accusation about "responsibility for 4 million deaths", a misrepresentation. I wasn't expecting you to be completely incapable of answering the question. I just wondered how you would answer it. Turns out, you chose to assign me homework to answer it for you.
I never (seriously) accused Fauci of lying. I presented the case, mostly made in the WaPo piece, that he was resting on a technicality from a recent change to the NIH's definition of GoF. Again, it is difficult to have this discussion if you aren't following along.
Rand won’t even take the vaccine. It’s a tough starting point for me. The line of questioning I would be interested in is why we let China off the hook on the origin theory of Covid. But once he said Fauci was responsible for millions of deaths I admittedly shut down. He is a physician and his words and actions have extra import. I can take that criticism.
