Fauci was ‘up to his neck’ funding coronavirus research in Wuhan

[We Never Know]

Right. So the paper in question does not support what is claimed in the OP, in fact the reverse.

Which is why I said "It differs a bit from what the video says"

 

[exchemist]

Fauci is a political hack. If true, it shows he stopped being a doctor long ago.

If you read the thread you will see it is not true. So he is still a doctor.

What evidence, from a reputable source, do you have that Fauci is a "political hack"?

On second thought don't bother. It will just be more of this poisonous campaign to bring down an expert, because he is more trusted by the people than Trump was.

 

[metis]

Fauci is a political hack. If true, it shows he stopped being a doctor long ago.

Is this why four presidents used him? Maybe consider getting off right-wing news and then actually doing some homework.

 

[metis]

If you read the thread you will see it is not true. So he is still a doctor.

What evidence, from a reputable source, do you have that Fauci is a "political hack"?

On second thought don't bother. It will just be more of this poisonous campaign to bring down an expert, because he is more trusted by the people than Trump was.

Because the best that only some can do is to parrot what they run across on right-wing sources. Fox has been on Fauci's case, for just one example, since the Trump administration mishandled the vaccine roll-out as some of them formally in that administration have stated. As you're probably aware of, Pfizer very much was worried about the politicizing of the vaccines, which is why they refused to take federal money from the Trump administration when developing it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is this why four presidents used him? Maybe consider getting off right-wing news and then actually doing some homework.

Four president's used him?

Confirmed the political hack component for me.

Txs

 

[metis]

Four president's used him?

Confirmed the political hack component for me.

Txs

So, you prefer the less educated more? Seems so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Four president's used him?

Confirmed the political hack component for me.

Txs

A political hack that changes his political/medical opinion based on who the President is at the time?
Come on.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A political hack that changes his political/medical opinion based on who the President is at the time?
Come on.

Think doctors can't be corrupt to be politically obedient to their superiors whims?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Think doctors can't be corrupt to be politically obedient to their superiors whims?

I'm saying that what you're saying doesn't make much sense.
But you've apparently been conditioned to think Fauci is some kind of lying hack, so there will be no convincing you, I fear.
Do you happen to listen to Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm saying that what you're saying doesn't make much sense.
But you've apparently been conditioned to think Fauci is some kind of lying hack, so there will be no convincing you, I fear.
Do you happen to listen to Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity?

No, but I do listen to the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons over Fauci.

 

[metis]

No, but I do listen to the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons over Fauci.

I doubt that very much as the research on covid has increasing become available and in general agreement with other researchers.

 

[stvdv]

Here is Dr Fauci's paper. It differs a bit from what the video says but its obvious he supports gain of function research.
Research on Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Influenza Virus: The Way Forward

Anthony S. Fauci
Read more at....
Research on Highly Pathogenic H5N1 Influenza Virus: The Way Forward

Thank you for sharing this link

 

[stvdv]

Sky News isn't a source I would trust. Full stop.

Did Fauci Fund ‘Gain of Function’ Research, Thereby Causing COVID-19 Pandemic? | Snopes.com

Thank you for the link

 

[stvdv]

A few quotes from the article written by Fauci; the article is very considerate/respectful towards 'the public' and being transparent; so far so good (2012):

The potential benefits and risks of these experiments must be discussed and understood by multiple stakeholders, including the general public, and all decisions regarding such research must be made in a transparent manner.

However, the issue that has been intensely debated is whether knowledge obtained from these experiments could inadvertently affect public health in an adverse way, even in nations multiple time zones away.

Putting aside the specter of bioterrorism for the moment, consider this hypothetical scenario: an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. 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? Many ask reasonable questions....

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.

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.

Granted, the time it takes to engage in such a dialog could potentially delay or even immobilize the conduct of certain important experiments and the publication of valuable information that could move the field forward for the good of public health

Within the research community, many have expressed concern that important research progress could come to a halt just because of the fear that someone, somewhere, might attempt to replicate these experiments sloppily

However, although influenza virus scientists are the best-informed individuals about influenza virus science, and possibly even about the true level of risk to public health, the influenza virus research community can no longer be the only player in the discussion of whether certain experiments should be done. Public opinion (domestic and global) and the judgments of independent biosafety and biosecurity experts are also critical

If we want to continue this important work, we collectively need to do a better job of articulating the scientific rationale for such experiments well before they are performed and provide discussion about the potential risk to public health, however remote.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, you prefer the less educated more? Seems so.

What? He's the most educated, and qualified doctor in the country or something?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I doubt that very much as the research on covid has increasing become available and in general agreement with other researchers.

I follow the paycheck of these people. The ones who controls what he can and cannot say via his employer.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No, but I do listen to the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons over Fauci.

Why the heck would you do THAT?!?!

The Opposite of Socialized Medicine

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why the heck would you do THAT?!?!

The Opposite of Socialized Medicine

They are independent and not beholden to political control.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They are independent and not beholden to political control.

Sure. But if you want to go further and claim they have no political affiliations or agenda,. Calling bulldust.

And why them...a small, conservative group with a tiny minority of doctors...over the AMA (for example)?

Have you done much research on them? Despite the credible sounding name, they have some less credible background and theories.

Do you agree with them on electronic health records?
That opioids aren't a problem, and doctors should freely prescribe them?

I mean...what do you think about this article on Obama?
Oratory—or hypnotic induction? - AAPS | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why the heck would you do THAT?!?!

The Opposite of Socialized Medicine

It figures.