Fauci Dismisses Science From Mayo Clinic

“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.”

He wrote that it was “more likely” that a pandemic would occur naturally and “the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky.”

Wuhan scientists
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.FeatureChina
However, he noted the scientific community “must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally.”

“We cannot expect those who have these concerns to simply take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place,” Fauci wrote.


“Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.”

Thoughtful and reasoned..

And there is NO evidence that such work caused this pandemic

We have NO business creating new viruses. Whether or not this work created it the cost of a pandemic is not worth the risk of something we shouldn't do to start with.
 
And the experts who are reading this study, what are they saying? By the way, scrutiny is a cornerstone of science.

We don't know what the experts are saying because bureaucratic administrators like Fauci are hogging all the bandwidth and trying to prevent any experts from being heard.
I am not enough of an expert to tell between vaccines, variants, etc., but I do know enough that "flattening the curve" is insanely stupid, so Fauci is not one of the people I would listen to.

And no, scrutiny is not a cornerstone of science.
Science is fact, whether or not it is scrutinized or not.
 
You speak dog whistles very well, the echo chamber has you under their spell..
What I try to say is that there are major difference in the way people are thinking. In the past we ingratiated each other no matter if we went to one side or the other in politics. Today there is a wedge that will not be removed until the media/entertainers start relenting. That is to start. That is free 95% propaganda, 24 hours a day.
 
"That study … is a pre-print study, it hasn’t been fully peer-reviewed," Fauci said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "I don’t doubt what they’re seeing, but there are a lot of confounding variables in there, about when one was started, the relative amount of people in that cohort who were delta vs alpha – right now, if we get boosters … it’s clear we want to make sure we get people, if possible, to get the boost from the original vaccine."

Why from the original vaccine?
If the vaccines have partial immunity only, due to variants, then one would think different vaccines would result in broader immunity?
 
We don't know what the experts are saying because bureaucratic administrators like Fauci are hogging all the bandwidth and trying to prevent any experts from being heard.

Which experts are being silenced exactly?

I am not enough of an expert to tell between vaccines, variants, etc., but I do know enough that "flattening the curve" is insanely stupid, so Fauci is not one of the people I would listen to.

But you're not an expert and they all disagree with you.

And no, scrutiny is not a cornerstone of science.
Science is fact, whether or not it is scrutinized or not.

No, it really is.

 
It doesn't though.

What do you think someone in Fauci's role should have said about the study? Understanding that it's not in a position or has gone through the rigor of peer review. Should he have said "Yeah, you might want to skip the Pfizer vaccine in favor of Moderna"? Do you think that would be helpful right now?
If he was a Scientist he would have said something along the lines of “That is an interesting study and I look forward to further information on it”. Instead, his God complex kicked in.

He is a hack media whore.
 
If he was a Scientist he would have said something along the lines of “That is an interesting study and I look forward to further information on it”. Instead, his God complex kicked in.

He is a hack media whore.


Oh? Now he has to spit out specific sentences? Ok.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top