Poll: Do You Agree With Dr. Rand Paul That Dr. Anthony Fauci Lied to Congress Regarding NIH Funding Gain of Function Research in Wuhan?

[schmidlap]

Again with the bizarre Fauci worship.

Respecting the immunologist who has distinguished himself by his long service to the American public is quite a different matter from the mindless adoration of the cult of trumpery.

The pissy mewling about the doctor appears to be just more hyper-partisan sniveling unless proven otherwise - targeting a relentless non-partisan. The whiners have yet to substantiate their aspersions.

In the meantime, there is no reason to take the chronic malcontents seriously.

"Keep being a science truth teller."
U.S. Rep. Fred Upton (R) wrote to Dr Fauci.​

 

[22lcidw]

Respecting the immunologist who has distinguished himself by his long service to the American public is quite a different matter from the mindless adoration of the cult of trumpery.

The pissy mewling about the doctor appears to be just more hyper-partisan sniveling unless proven otherwise - targeting a relentless non-partisan. The whiners have yet to substantiate their aspersions.

In the meantime, there is no reason to take the chronic malcontents seriously.

"Keep being a science truth teller."
U.S. Rep. Fred Upton (R)​

Fauci is like MAFIA!

 

[schmidlap]

Fauci is like MAFIA!

Hyper-partisans raving hysterically about the respected immunologist is of no import.

Until crackpot charges against Fauci are substantiated, he continues to be accorded the trust he has earned:

A survey released this week by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found 76 percent of respondents said they were "somewhat or very confident" in the veracity of information about the coronavirus coming from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its leaders.​

​

At the same time, 68 percent said they believed Fauci, a member of former President Trump's coronavirus task force and a top adviser to President Biden on the pandemic, has provided trustworthy advice.​

​

[Trust in Fauci, federal health agencies strong: poll]​

 

[badger2]

Wrong.
The Wuhan research center admits that gain of function, meaning the potential for a zoonotic cross over, was the whole point of the place even existing. If not for the fact it was doing risky gain of function research, it would have been done in the US.

Yes, the French thought that Wuhan would be a good place to build a Level 4, so they did.

 

[Fueri]

I don't know why we're asking Fauci. He's a proven lying sack of shit.

There is enough here to warrant an actual investigation into what happened and our involvement in it that is actually more than political theater.

 

[badger2]

Your link is not the half of it. The same month Trump took over (January 2017), Fauci announced to the world a surprise pandemic was coming....



How would he know that, if it's a surprise?

This is Fau Chi’s owning intellectual stock in Moderna, not financial stock. Rand Paul knows the difference.

 

[22lcidw]

Hyper-partisans raving hysterically about the respected immunologist is of no import.

Until crackpot charges against Fauci are substantiated, he continues to be accorded the trust he has earned:

A survey released this week by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found 76 percent of respondents said they were "somewhat or very confident" in the veracity of information about the coronavirus coming from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its leaders.​

​

At the same time, 68 percent said they believed Fauci, a member of former President Trump's coronavirus task force and a top adviser to President Biden on the pandemic, has provided trustworthy advice.​

​

[Trust in Fauci, federal health agencies strong: poll]​

After awhile corrupted quacks are shown for what they are. Ask people who get medical treatments and operations about that. There are a lot of dead or less then optimal people living people because of that alone. This guy is a globalist and a member of the deep swamp in American politics.

 

[sakinago]

Respecting the immunologist who has distinguished himself by his long service to the American public is quite a different matter from the mindless adoration of the cult of trumpery.

The pissy mewling about the doctor appears to be just more hyper-partisan sniveling unless proven otherwise - targeting a relentless non-partisan. The whiners have yet to substantiate their aspersions.

In the meantime, there is no reason to take the chronic malcontents seriously.

"Keep being a science truth teller."
U.S. Rep. Fred Upton (R) wrote to Dr Fauci.​

You know using bigger words doesn’t make you look smarter? Scientifically it actually does the opposite. That was a lot of fluff to just say I don’t like what rand is saying. I already stated an A priori “I don’t like what he’s saying” will not suffice as a valid argument in this case. Nor would it suffice in any other setting.

So let’s just go through Rands assertions. These will be yes or no questions. Was the NIH knowingly funding an organization that was funding/doing research at the Wuhan lab.
Yes or No?

Is the NIHs own definition of gain of function research increasing transmissibility including the ability to infect a new species...among other things, but specifically that?
Yes or No?

Does the research funded by the NIH at the wuhan lab include giving the ability to infect a new species in at least one virus?
Yes or No?

I feel like this is a sufficient summery of Rands assertions. Anybody, feel free to join in.

Also, let me just state for the record here that Faucis record and “service” is not even close to halfway decent. It is rife with ethical violations, and just straight up shitty science. He overestimated the HIV threat saying that 10 million Americans would die in 10 years. That was close to 40 years ago. And we’re only at 250,000 deaths. He and his department have had multiple ethical complaints including conducting HIV drug research on foster children because they could not find willing participants and these children, being wards of the state, could not say no (since the state was the guardian. That’s a hangable offense in my book. Let’s stop the absurd worship of this feckless bureaucrat. Anyone who declares “To criticize me is to criticize the science” is not a scientist.

 

[badger2]

A 4% difference is tiny because when more than one virus deposits its RNA into the same cell nucleus, you are bound to get hybrid like combinations.

Look at how many different covid viruses can attack a single cell?

Yes, tiny. And?

 

[schmidlap]

Yes, the French thought that Wuhan would be a good place to build a Level 4, so they did.

In the matter of Randy's raving about Fauci, the hyper-partisans are falling in line.

Medical experts adhere to the scientific reality. It is a matter of science, and knee-jerk judgments by ideological fanatics will not be the determinant of where the truth resides.

If the politician is telling the truth when he claims that he plans on asking the Department of Justice to open a criminal inquiry into Fauci for lying to Congress, the findings of that inquiry will be the only valid resolution. If no such inquiry is requested, that will be an admission of the fraudulence of the charge.

Experts are siding with Dr. Anthony Fauci in the dispute with Sen. Rand Paul over whether experiments done on bat coronaviruses conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology constituted gain of function research...​

​

Robert Garry, a virologist and professor at Tulane University, described the experiments as being a study as to whether the bat coronaviruses could infect humans. What they didn't do, he told Newsweek, was make the viruses "any better" at infecting people, which would be necessary for gain-of-function research.​

​

Gain-of-function is a controversial research method that involves manipulating pathogens to give them a new aspect, such as making viruses more transmissible or dangerous to humans. Dr. Vincent Racaniello, a virologist at Columbia University, said the "key" to the research not being gain-of-function is the viruses the researchers started with could already infect human cells because they could bind to the ACE2 receptor, a protein that serves as the entry point for coronaviruses to infect human cells...​

​

"If you started with a bat virus that could not infect human cells and then gave it the ability to do so, that would be a gain-of-function. But that is not what they did there," Racaniello said. "They didn't give it a new property."..​

​

"When all the heat of the pandemic dies down would it be appropriate to take a look at some of this guidance and reconsider it? Sure, it would be foolish not to," Garry said.​

​

However, Garry added that crossing the line between restricting dangerous gain-of-function experiments and basic virology where scientists "swap bits and pieces of viruses" could hinder the worlds' ability to study viruses that could be harmful to humans and "know what's out there."...​

​

Dr. Gregory Gray, a Duke University professor, disagreed with Paul's assessment that the experiments attempted to increase the virus' transmissibility. He characterized it as "lifting the hood" on a virus to see how it works.​

​

Brett Giroir, former President Donald Trump's coronavirus testing czar... acknowledged it may not be "technically 'gain-of-function research.'"​

​

Stuart Neil, a professor of virology at King's College in London, admitted it was a "grey area" in a Twitter thread explaining the debate. However, he reasoned that the grant was determined not to involve gain-of-function research because scientists were replacing a function in a virus that already had the ability to infect humans rather than giving that ability to a virus that could not infect humans.​

​

Regardless of how it's viewed in retrospect, Neil argued that at the time the grant was awarded, the NIH didn't think it constituted gain-of-function research and therefore Fauci was not lying.​

​

[Is Sen. Rand Paul or Dr. Fauci Right About Gain-of-Function Research Funding in Wuhan?]​

 

[badger2]

You know using bigger words doesn’t make you look smarter? Scientifically it actually does the opposite. That was a lot of fluff to just say I don’t like what rand is saying. I already stated an A priori “I don’t like what he’s saying” will not suffice as a valid argument in this case. Nor would it suffice in any other setting.

So let’s just go through Rands assertions. These will be yes or no questions. Was the NIH knowingly funding an organization that was funding/doing research at the Wuhan lab.
Yes or No?

Is the NIHs own definition of gain of function research increasing transmissibility including the ability to infect a new species...among other things, but specifically that?
Yes or No?

Does the research funded by the NIH at the wuhan lab include giving the ability to infect a new species in at least one virus?
Yes or No?

I feel like this is a sufficient summery of Rands assertions. Anybody, feel free to join in.

Also, let me just state for the record here that Faucis record and “service” is not even close to halfway decent. It is rife with ethical violations, and just straight up shitty science. He overestimated the HIV threat saying that 10 million Americans would die in 10 years. That was close to 40 years ago. And we’re only at 250,000 deaths. He and his department have had multiple ethical complaints including conducting HIV drug research on foster children because they could not find willing participants and these children, being wards of the state, could not say no (since the state was the guardian. That’s a hangable offense in my book. Let’s stop the absurd worship of this feckless bureaucrat. Anyone who declares “To criticize me is to criticize the science” is not a scientist.

You know using bigger words doesn’t make you look smarter? Scientifically it actually does the opposite. That was a lot of fluff to just say I don’t like what rand is saying. I already stated an A priori “I don’t like what he’s saying” will not suffice as a valid argument in this case. Nor would it suffice in any other setting.

So let’s just go through Rands assertions. These will be yes or no questions. Was the NIH knowingly funding an organization that was funding/doing research at the Wuhan lab.
Yes or No?

Is the NIHs own definition of gain of function research increasing transmissibility including the ability to infect a new species...among other things, but specifically that?
Yes or No?

Does the research funded by the NIH at the wuhan lab include giving the ability to infect a new species in at least one virus?
Yes or No?

I feel like this is a sufficient summery of Rands assertions. Anybody, feel free to join in.

Also, let me just state for the record here that Faucis record and “service” is not even close to halfway decent. It is rife with ethical violations, and just straight up shitty science. He overestimated the HIV threat saying that 10 million Americans would die in 10 years. That was close to 40 years ago. And we’re only at 250,000 deaths. He and his department have had multiple ethical complaints including conducting HIV drug research on foster children because they could not find willing participants and these children, being wards of the state, could not say no (since the state was the guardian. That’s a hangable offense in my book. Let’s stop the absurd worship of this feckless bureaucrat. Anyone who declares “To criticize me is to criticize the science” is not a scientist.

You can’t apply a penis shield for Fau Chi by simply NIH’s definition of gain of function. Scientist democracy should not allow it. SARS-COV-2’s closest relative came out of the Mojiang cave with the ability to infect human cells. True or false?

 

[Batcat]

If I were in Fauci’s shoes I would play the same game.

Does anyone expect him to say, “Whoops, it looks like I backed funding to enhance a virus that escaped the lap and worldwide has killed four million people?”

I once heard that one aw shit cancels out 1000 attaboys. Fauci committed an aw shit big enough to ruin 1,000,000 attaboys.

It’s like Fauci must have been thinking, “We can fund virus enhancement in a Chinese biological weapons lab. What could possibly go wrong?”

'COVID-19 came from a biological weapons lab in Wuhan' - Top US official

A leading US Intelligence advisor has taken a firm stance on the origins of COVID-19, insisting that the virus came from a biological weapons lab in Wuhan.

www.thesouthafrican.com

Leaked Cable: Hillary Warned Wuhan Lab Could Make Bioweapon - Citizens Journal

By Art Moore WND News Center Hillary Clinton When she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton warned in a cable to French officials that research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology could lead to a "biological weapons proliferation concern." The cable, obtained via Wikileaks, was addressed to all...

www.citizensjournal.us

 

[sakinago]

You can’t apply a penis shield for Fau Chi by simply NIH’s definition of gain of function. Scientist democracy should not allow it. SARS-COV-2’s closest relative came out of the Mojiang cave with the ability to infect human cells. True or false?

Penis shield? And I think you’re confused. I’m not defending Fauci. I agree we shouldn’t be doing it as I’ve already stated. I think GOF research is a masturbatory process with nothing but all downside. Maybe it had its place 20 years ago. But now we know the general paths of micro evolution pretty damn well. Outside of those general paths, the odds of creating a natural viable one that is of worth to study is statistically zero.

 

[schmidlap]

You know using bigger words doesn’t make you look smarter? Scientifically it actually does the opposite. That was a lot of fluff to just say I don’t like what rand is saying. I already stated an A priori “I don’t like what he’s saying” will not suffice as a valid argument in this case. Nor would it suffice in any other setting.

So let’s just go through Rands assertions. These will be yes or no questions. Was the NIH knowingly funding an organization that was funding/doing research at the Wuhan lab.
Yes or No?

Is the NIHs own definition of gain of function research increasing transmissibility including the ability to infect a new species...among other things, but specifically that?
Yes or No?

Does the research funded by the NIH at the wuhan lab include giving the ability to infect a new species in at least one virus?
Yes or No?

I feel like this is a sufficient summery of Rands assertions. Anybody, feel free to join in.

Also, let me just state for the record here that Faucis record and “service” is not even close to halfway decent. It is rife with ethical violations, and just straight up shitty science. He overestimated the HIV threat saying that 10 million Americans would die in 10 years. That was close to 40 years ago. And we’re only at 250,000 deaths. He and his department have had multiple ethical complaints including conducting HIV drug research on foster children because they could not find willing participants and these children, being wards of the state, could not say no (since the state was the guardian. That’s a hangable offense in my book. Let’s stop the absurd worship of this feckless bureaucrat. Anyone who declares “To criticize me is to criticize the science” is not a scientist.

It's not that complicated. Randy, after calling the respected immunologist a liar, claimed that he will file a request with the Department of Justice concerning the scientific matter.

If deemed legitimate, the inquiry will occur, and the decision will be based upon empirical reality concerning the science, not hyper-partisan prejudices.

Be patient.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

This is Fau Chi’s owning intellectual stock in Moderna, not financial stock. Rand Paul knows the difference.

I don't think we know if Fauci owns Moderna stock. If you do, please provide a source. Thanks.

Moderna issued its IPO in December 2018 at $23/share. It's now at $349.

 

[sakinago]

It's not that complicated. Randy, after calling the respected immunologist a liar, claimed that he will file a request with the Department of Justice concerning the scientific matter.

If deemed legitimate, the inquiry will occur, and the decision will be based upon empirical reality concerning the science, not hyper-partisan prejudices.

Be patient.

Right. Because the DOJ is sooooo not a partisan institution. Garland is a total upstanding nonpartisan guy.

Here’s the retarded shit you just said. You’re allowed to question and even cast aspersions on rand Paul as much as you want. Even without providing evidence to do so. But, when it comes to Faucis record, Rand, nor anyone else is allowed to question, even when the evidence is coming from his own NIH. We have to wait for the DOJ.

Absurd

Fauci is thine pope, and thou shalt not question thine pope. For thouest know not the special knowledge that thine Fauci obtains. NIH is thine god and Fauci is it prophet.


Answer the fucking yes or no questions.

 

[badger2]

What you posted was...

Paul’s article shows that one of the viruses was LYRa11. Badger’s post shows that LYRa11 was a gain of function for the virus as it relates to human ACE2 receptors. Duh​

All Paul's article says about "LYRa11" is ...

Another strain from Rhinolophus affinis in Yunnan termed LYRa11 showed 90% aa sequence identity to SARS-CoV in the S gene​

Where does it state Wuhan worked with LYRa11? Where does it show LYRa11 was juiced with gain-of-function research? What does LYRa11 have to do with Wuhan funding in 2014 or later when it was sampled in Yunnan in 2011?

You failed to read

In the matter of Randy's raving about Fauci, the hyper-partisans are falling in line.

Medical experts adhere to the scientific reality. It is a matter of science, and knee-jerk judgments by ideological fanatics will not be the determinant of where the truth resides.

If the politician is telling the truth when he claims that he plans on asking the Department of Justice to open a criminal inquiry into Fauci for lying to Congress, the findings of that inquiry will be the only valid resolution. If no such inquiry is requested, that will be an admission of the fraudulence of the charge.

Experts are siding with Dr. Anthony Fauci in the dispute with Sen. Rand Paul over whether experiments done on bat coronaviruses conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology constituted gain of function research...​

​

Robert Garry, a virologist and professor at Tulane University, described the experiments as being a study as to whether the bat coronaviruses could infect humans. What they didn't do, he told Newsweek, was make the viruses "any better" at infecting people, which would be necessary for gain-of-function research.​

​

Gain-of-function is a controversial research method that involves manipulating pathogens to give them a new aspect, such as making viruses more transmissible or dangerous to humans. Dr. Vincent Racaniello, a virologist at Columbia University, said the "key" to the research not being gain-of-function is the viruses the researchers started with could already infect human cells because they could bind to the ACE2 receptor, a protein that serves as the entry point for coronaviruses to infect human cells...​

​

"If you started with a bat virus that could not infect human cells and then gave it the ability to do so, that would be a gain-of-function. But that is not what they did there," Racaniello said. "They didn't give it a new property."..​

​

"When all the heat of the pandemic dies down would it be appropriate to take a look at some of this guidance and reconsider it? Sure, it would be foolish not to," Garry said.​

​

However, Garry added that crossing the line between restricting dangerous gain-of-function experiments and basic virology where scientists "swap bits and pieces of viruses" could hinder the worlds' ability to study viruses that could be harmful to humans and "know what's out there."...​

​

Dr. Gregory Gray, a Duke University professor, disagreed with Paul's assessment that the experiments attempted to increase the virus' transmissibility. He characterized it as "lifting the hood" on a virus to see how it works.​

​

Brett Giroir, former President Donald Trump's coronavirus testing czar... acknowledged it may not be "technically 'gain-of-function research.'"​

​

Stuart Neil, a professor of virology at King's College in London, admitted it was a "grey area" in a Twitter thread explaining the debate. However, he reasoned that the grant was determined not to involve gain-of-function research because scientists were replacing a function in a virus that already had the ability to infect humans rather than giving that ability to a virus that could not infect humans.​

​

Regardless of how it's viewed in retrospect, Neil argued that at the time the grant was awarded, the NIH didn't think it constituted gain-of-function research and therefore Fauci was not lying.​

​

[Is Sen. Rand Paul or Dr. Fauci Right About Gain-of-Function Research Funding in Wuhan?]​

I don't think we know if Fauci owns Moderna stock. If you do, please provide a source. Thanks.

Moderna issued its IPO in December 2018 at $23/share. It's now at $349.

Fau chi owns intellectual stock as an inside trader that can’t be measured in monetary value. It just sounds boring. Daszak was also in there with him working with the Chinese: his sidekick and field agent.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Your link is not the half of it. The same month Trump took over (January 2017), Fauci announced to the world a surprise pandemic was coming....



How would he know that, if it's a surprise?

Dr Fauci is a lot like twisted firemen who become arsonist so that they can become heroes.
And, he did become a hero for the Twisted Troglocrats.
The Democrat Cultist love their Dr Quack, they even made a bunch of memes for their hero.

Firefighter arson - Wikipedia​

Firefighter arson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• Overview
• See also

Firefighter arson is a persistent phenomenon involving a minority of firefighters who are also active arsonists. Fire-fighting organizations are aware of this problem. Some of the offenders seem to be motivated by boredom, or by the prospect of receiving attention for responding to the fires they have set. It has been reported that roughly 100 U.S. firefighters are convicted of arson each year.
Firefighter-caused arsons are not tracked in the United States. The National Interagency Fire Center (NI…

 

[badger2]

Penis shield? And I think you’re confused. I’m not defending Fauci. I agree we shouldn’t be doing it as I’ve already stated. I think GOF research is a masturbatory process with nothing but all downside. Maybe it had its place 20 years ago. But now we know the general paths of micro evolution pretty damn well. Outside of those general paths, the odds of creating a natural viable one that is of worth to study is statistically zero.

Badger is not confused about the penis shield. It’s impossible for Badger to know how who and how many are helping to apply it to Fau Chi’s crotch. Your problematic is this: once the virus is taken out of nature and its nearest relatives also show the “gain-of-function” ability to cross species, it’s an Eddy Murphy imitation from then on, and military vaccines will trump civilian vaccines every time. Wuhan is drenched with military connections. Obama-Biden administration funded Duke-NUS Singapore, that same technology went on to vaccinate the Russian army.

 

[badger2]

(Eddy Murphy, discourse from the mechanic’s creeper, Trading Places)