Fauci, the Worst Scientist in History

Rick wrote:

ScienceChic wrote: You know, I've read a few of the emails that were published and so far have seen nothing that contradicts what he's said publicly. Just like with the climate scientists' emails that were stolen and published, and people tried finding tiny sentences to take out of context and twist into something they weren't, I'm seeing this play out all over again with Fauci. I think if everyone's emails were to be published publicly, there'd be a lot of sh*t that could be completely misconstrued without the background information about the situation going on, and phone calls and personal conversations that add detail that isn't captured as well.

He is not a fraud, nor the worst scientist in history. I do think he's human, has made mistakes and tried to change and adapt as new information became available in order to do what's right for the public. I'd also like to see a full investigation into the decision to fund research in the Wuhan lab and what happened with this virus.

Please watch the video I posted and tell me which parts are lies. Steve Hilton isn't a conservative and everything in that video if factual. Fauci knew full well about the gain of function research that resulted in this pandemic and he tried to distance himself from it and he did lie to congress.[/b] He was warned Time will tell if he actually experiences the justice he deserves, but history will clearly show that he was probably the worst person to put in that position, and THAT is something you could blame Trump for (although Trump thought he was the right guy like everyone else did). When the highest paid guy in government gets almost everything wrong from start to finish and then we find that he knew more than he let on, that's a guy that should immediately be let go and investigated.

Science should be constantly looked at with critical eyes and should never be considered "settled" unless there is irrefutable evidence. The virus supposedly started in a wet market that never sold bats or Pangolins and it just happened to be 5 miles from a level 4 virology lab that studied and manipulated corona viruses. You can't tell me there were not plenty of scientists telling anyone who would listen that the lab leak made the most sense. Instead, our worthless press called that "debunked", like they do with any narrative that goes against their own. We all paid a very heavy price for all the incompetence.

ScienceChic wrote: This. And not just is debate and dialog necessary, but it's completely ineffective when you go into it with a closed mind looking only to denounce or denigrate those with whom you disagree. If the search for the truth isn't your objective, then your viewpoint, no matter which side, is partisan, biased, and subject to dismissal.

Daszak has appeared in multiple media fact-checks and reports over the past year dispelling the notion the coronavirus accidentally emerged from the lab. Daszak's New York-based organization sent $3.4 million in National Institutes of Health grants to the Wuhan lab between 2014 and 2019, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The Lancet did not explain exactly why Daszak was recused. The Daily Mail first reported on the profile update and said it was Daszak who helped organize the letter.

www.foxnews.com/health/daszak-recused-fr...-covid-19-commission

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country’s top disease expert, has been under increasing pressure by Republicans over funding for the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The documents were obtained and released by The Intercept on Tuesday after it launched an FOIA lawsuit.

Richard Ebright, board of governors professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology, told Newsweek these documents show "unequivocally" that NIH grants were used to fund controversial gain-of-function (GOF) research at the Wuhan Insitute of Virology in China—something U.S. infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci has denied.

Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is part of the NIH, told Congress in May that the NIH "has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology."

Ebright said: "The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement in Wuhan are untruthful."

In a stunning admission, USA's National Institute of Health has accepted that US-funded money was used for bat coronavirus gain-of-function research in a lab in Wuhan.

Gain of function refers to a genetically altering animal viruses to make them more transmissible in humans.

A top NIH official has admitted to US funding in a letter written to Congressman James Comer. Lawrence A. Tabak, principal deputy director of the NIH however, has insisted that bat viruses studied under NIH grant could not have become Covid-19.

The admission of funding to gain-of-function research from the NIH is contradictory to stand taken by Dr Anthony Fauci, USA's top disease expert, who has firmly denied such a thing.

"When you give advice about what should you be doing — should you be out there, should you be shutting down earlier versus later? I mean, people get confused. And they say, 'Wow, you know, we shut down and we caused a great disruption in society. We caused great economic pain, loss of jobs,' " Fauci said in an interview with the Department of Health and Human Services’s (HHS) “Learning Curve” podcast.

"But if you look at the data, now that papers have come out literally two days ago, the fact that we shut down when we did and the rest of the world did, has saved hundreds of millions of infections and millions of lives," he added.


"And yet, there are those who say, 'You shut down, you did destructive things by disrupting the economy.' And others say, 'Well, if you save so many infections by shutting down, why didn't you shut down two weeks earlier? You could have saved many more lives.'"

The use of lockdowns is a unique feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns have not been used to such a large extent during any of the pandemics of the past century. However, lockdowns during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument

People who argued against the “scientific consensus” about the lockdowns were stifled, censored by Big Tech, denigrated by the media, and mocked by establishment scientists. That was essentially “anti-science.” The scientific method needs heterodox voices to speak freely if it is to function properly.

This subsequent look-back shows why. To a large degree, those with the officially disfavored views–such as the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration—were correct on this matter.

Will we learn the lesson? Yes, if our goal is to ably discern and apply the best policy options, which can be a messy process. No, if the point is to allow those in charge of institutional science to exert societal control.

“Here we are. It’s the end of April. It’s the spring of 2022. How close are we to the end of the pandemic?” Judy Woodruff of “PBS NewsHour” asked Fauci Tuesday.

“We are certainly, right now, in this country out of the pandemic phase,” Fauci replied

“We are in a different moment of the pandemic,” Fauci told the Associated Press Wednesday. The US has “decelerated and transitioned into more of a controlled phase” after a winter surge, he added.

“By no means does that mean the pandemic is over,” Fauci said in his 180-degree turnabout.