Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You quoted PART of what he said and ignored the fuller statement.Inflammatory? I quoted Fauci's own words. Now granted, I consider those words pretty bad but they are his words.
Please stop acting like a Trump Humper
Actually not. I have repeatedly asked to see this evidence and been given nothing.The deal is there is an outstanding chance this virus, that killed nearlly 4,000,000 people, leaked from a laboratory in China.
What there is, are a lot of allegations that are to this point unsupported regarding the Wuhan lab .
That's in NO WAY excusing the actions of the Chinese government after the infection began.
That's your "logic"?Actually not. I have repeatedly asked to see this evidence and been given nothing.The deal is there is an outstanding chance this virus, that killed nearlly 4,000,000 people, leaked from a laboratory in China.
What there is, are a lot of allegations that are to this point unsupported regarding the Wuhan lab .
That's in NO WAY excusing the actions of the Chinese government after the infection began.
To be clear, there is also ZERO evidence it came from someone eating a bat but you believe that?
That's your "logic"?Actually not. I have repeatedly asked to see this evidence and been given nothing.The deal is there is an outstanding chance this virus, that killed nearlly 4,000,000 people, leaked from a laboratory in China.
What there is, are a lot of allegations that are to this point unsupported regarding the Wuhan lab .
That's in NO WAY excusing the actions of the Chinese government after the infection began.
To be clear, there is also ZERO evidence it came from someone eating a bat but you believe that?
Jesus...you sound just like a trump Humper
"Discussed" and dismissed what doesn't fit your narrative. How trumpianNo, I've discussed his full statement.
"Discussed" and dismissed what doesn't fit your narrative. How trumpianNo, I've discussed his full statement.
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. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we 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. 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.
..
...
The game has changed for influenza virus scientists and the agencies that support them. As researchers, we must realize that we are critical players in the process of policy and decision making related to DURC, but we are not the only players. Before embarking on certain types of research, we must ask ourselves critical questions about whether there are alternative ways to answer the research questions at hand. When no reasonable alternatives exist, we must take the scientific approach to making the argument for conducting such experiments before they are performed. The voluntary moratorium on the controversial issue of gain-of-function research related to the transmissibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus is providing us the time and space we all need to work together and get this right, and it should be continued until we do so
And just like a trump Humper...you engage in personal attacks after being thoroughly humiliated."Discussed" and dismissed what doesn't fit your narrative. How trumpianNo, I've discussed his full statement.
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. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we 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. 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.
..
...
The game has changed for influenza virus scientists and the agencies that support them. As researchers, we must realize that we are critical players in the process of policy and decision making related to DURC, but we are not the only players. Before embarking on certain types of research, we must ask ourselves critical questions about whether there are alternative ways to answer the research questions at hand. When no reasonable alternatives exist, we must take the scientific approach to making the argument for conducting such experiments before they are performed. The voluntary moratorium on the controversial issue of gain-of-function research related to the transmissibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus is providing us the time and space we all need to work together and get this right, and it should be continued until we do so
People like yourself are so sad. You are only able to see things through your myopic political eyes. No one is going to confuse me with a Trump supporter but this is where you have to go because you have nowhere else to go.
I did, and he still disagreed he said what I quoted. fk dude, some people really have no integrity.You can quote him verbatim, and he will deny he said it.
from your linkdid any company dump waste as a result of those rollbacks?sure you said it, again:so just say you misspoke and move along.I didn't say a company did. I said Trump would allow it. His rollbacks allowed more waste into the environment.
I didn't say what you claimed I said.
"allow the manufacturer to start" name one that started? dude, if that's not what you meant say it wasn't and move along.
I posted a link to regulations to protect the environment that he rolled back.
I'm not an inspector and whether or not they did, they can.
Why Trump just killed a rule restricting coal companies from dumping waste in streams
from your linkdid any company dump waste as a result of those rollbacks?sure you said it, again:so just say you misspoke and move along.I didn't say a company did. I said Trump would allow it. His rollbacks allowed more waste into the environment.
I didn't say what you claimed I said.
"allow the manufacturer to start" name one that started? dude, if that's not what you meant say it wasn't and move along.
I posted a link to regulations to protect the environment that he rolled back.
I'm not an inspector and whether or not they did, they can.
Why Trump just killed a rule restricting coal companies from dumping waste in streams
But that is indeed what’s going on. In early February, the House and Senate voted to repeal the so-called “stream protection rule” — using a regulation-killing tool known as the Congressional Review Act. On Thursday, President Trump signed the bill, which means the stream protection rule is now dead. Coal companies will have a freer hand in dumping mining debris in streams.
And ask, since this was in 2017, has any company actually dumped debris in the rivers? I will avoid the entire, Congress actually repealed the regulation, it wasn't Trump on an EO or anything. So factually speaking your issue is with Congress. Trump signed it.
The regulation at discussion:
What Obama’s “stream protection rule” actually does
Coal mining is a messy business. In parts of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia, mining companies often get at underground coal seams by blowing up the tops of mountains — a process known as mountaintop removal mining. Once that’s done, they’ll dump the debris into the valleys below, which can contaminate streams and waterways with toxic heavy metals.
Appalachian Voices, an environmental group, estimates that coal companies have buried over 2,000 miles of streams in the region through mountaintop removal mining since the 1990s. And there’s growing evidence that when mining debris and waste gets into water supplies, the toxic metals can have dire health impacts for the people and mostly rural communities living nearby.
Quite a few cans in that write up. Can is not 'will' nor 'is'. So technically speaking, no one has proved that there ever was toxic waste in a stream. There is no factual statement of verification or confirmation. hmmmmmmmmmm. So again, technically speaking, the regulation was worthless.
thanks, and yes you claim you have no known company that has dumped debris in the streams. In fact, no one has ever found evidence of a company dumping debris in the streams. Your article said so. So, the point of fact is that Trump is not allowing any such thing since any such thing never existed. And why the regulation was repealed.So factually speaking my issue is with Congress AND Trump. I already addressed your other question. Why repeat something that has already been addressed?
thanks, and yes you claim you have no known company that has dumped debris in the streams. In fact, no one has ever found evidence of a company dumping debris in the streams. Your article said so. So, the point of fact is that Trump is not allowing any such thing since any such thing never existed. And why the regulation was repealed.So factually speaking my issue is with Congress AND Trump. I already addressed your other question. Why repeat something that has already been addressed?
except the regulation was never proven to be stopping anything since no evidence of such nonsense happened. And it was Congress that repealed it. Trump signed it. And to date, there hasn't ever been a company cited for the actual regulation to be written.He supported rolling back regulations that would allow a company to do so and that is exactly what I initially said.
except the regulation was never proven to be stopping anything since no evidence of such nonsense happened. And it was Congress that repealed it. Trump signed it. And to date, there hasn't ever been a company cited for the actual regulation to be written.He supported rolling back regulations that would allow a company to do so and that is exactly what I initially said.
thanks, and yes you claim you have no known company that has dumped debris in the streams. In fact, no one has ever found evidence of a company dumping debris in the streams. Your article said so. So, the point of fact is that Trump is not allowing any such thing since any such thing never existed. And why the regulation was repealed.
You two need to get a roomHe supported rolling back regulations that would allow a company to do so and that is exactly what I initially said.
it's legislation from congress and trump signed it. You wish to push an agenda now. I will continue to post the facts here, no company ever was cited for dumping debris in streams as the regulation wished to stop. So factually speaking it was a nonsense regulation for people to feel better, but created chaos to companies. That's all. And, still no one has ever been cited so trump hasn't allowed any stream to be filled with debris because it never happened.except the regulation was never proven to be stopping anything since no evidence of such nonsense happened. And it was Congress that repealed it. Trump signed it. And to date, there hasn't ever been a company cited for the actual regulation to be written.He supported rolling back regulations that would allow a company to do so and that is exactly what I initially said.
Trump and Congress repealed it.
then what's your logic?That's your "logic"?
it's legislation from congress and trump signed it. You wish to push an agenda now. I will continue to post the facts here, no company ever was cited for dumping debris in streams as the regulation wished to stop. So factually speaking it was a nonsense regulation for people to feel better, but created chaos to companies. That's all. And, still no one has ever been cited so trump hasn't allowed any stream to be filled with debris because it never happened.except the regulation was never proven to be stopping anything since no evidence of such nonsense happened. And it was Congress that repealed it. Trump signed it. And to date, there hasn't ever been a company cited for the actual regulation to be written.He supported rolling back regulations that would allow a company to do so and that is exactly what I initially said.
Trump and Congress repealed it.
so which part of this changes the statement pk posted in the initial response?"Discussed" and dismissed what doesn't fit your narrative. How trumpianNo, I've discussed his full statement.
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. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we 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. 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.
..
...
The game has changed for influenza virus scientists and the agencies that support them. As researchers, we must realize that we are critical players in the process of policy and decision making related to DURC, but we are not the only players. Before embarking on certain types of research, we must ask ourselves critical questions about whether there are alternative ways to answer the research questions at hand. When no reasonable alternatives exist, we must take the scientific approach to making the argument for conducting such experiments before they are performed. The voluntary moratorium on the controversial issue of gain-of-function research related to the transmissibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus is providing us the time and space we all need to work together and get this right, and it should be continued until we do so
