Fauci is hiding past work on 'super-viruses that jump from animals to humans,' Rand Paul claims

[whatbogsends]

So, what’s the upshot of all of this?
That you were correct in not trusting Fauci?
Kudos, then, I guess. Well done.

The upshot is that maybe people will assess the facts rather than jump to support who they align to politically?

I'm not someone who aligns with Rand Paul politically, but the first two pages of responses in this thread was a Rand Paul ad hominem parade, without even attempting to look at the claim in question.

 

[FireDragon76]

Apparently you do not understand the ad hominem fallacy. They all made the same genetic error; an assertion is to be dismissed because Rand Paul said it.

(Rand Paul is a doctor, FYI).

Rand Paul is an opthamologist, not an epidemiologist. Dr. Anthony Fauci is an honored civil servant in that field of expertise.

 

[whatbogsends]

Rand Paul is an opthamologist, not an epidemiologist. Dr. Anthony Fauci is an honored civil servant in that field of expertise.

And Fauci lied about the NIH funding Gain of Function research in Wuhan.

Credentials are largely irrelevant when it comes to determining who's telling the truth.

 

[expos4ever]

Fauci seemed proud of working with engineered viruses back as he talks about in a Washington Post article in 2011:.....

Ok, but what is the broader point. I think you will be hard-pressed indeed to make the case that what Dr. Fauci was involved with was not a reasonable thing to do. I hasten to add, as one always has to do when discussing Covid, that it is simply not "fair" to frame an issue in a manner that screens out important variables.

In this context, we need to be responsible and balance the risks of such "bio-engineering" work with the benefits. It would not be responsible to frame this matter as though the risk is the only relevant consideration.

 

[whatbogsends]

Ok, but what is the broader point. I think you will be hard-pressed indeed to make the case that what Dr. Fauci was involved with was not a reasonable thing to do. I hasten to add, as one always has to do when discussing Covid, that it is simply not "fair" to frame an issue in a manner that screens out important variables.

In this context, we need to be responsible and balance the risks of such "bio-engineering" work with the benefits. It would not be responsible to frame this matter as though the risk is the only relevant consideration.

The broader point is that Fauci is being dishonest in disclosure about his activities and NIH funding. Instead of fighting the battle that the Gain of Function research was doing was necessary/beneficial, he denied doing it, and likewise denied NIH funding of GoF research in Wuhan which they clearly did. If there's nothing to see here, then why lie about something so easily proven? This speaks directly to his credibility.

What's not "fair" is for everyone to reach a definitive conclusion that Rand Paul is lying and Fauci is telling the truth based on previous reputation alone and not a scrutiny or even basic inspection of facts. Even when facts were presented, they were repeatedly met with "but you can't trust Rand Paul, and Fauci is an esteemed civil servant" rather than actually addressing the facts. On a broader context, it speaks to why we can't have civil discussion, as both sides are dug in their trenches, and even when presented with facts that counter their position, struggle to not respond with anything other than their predetermined position on the subject.

 

[expos4ever]

The broader point is that Fauci is being dishonest in disclosure about his activities and NIH funding. Instead of fighting the battle that the Gain of Function research was doing was necessary/beneficial, he denied doing it, and likewise denied NIH funding of GoF research in Wuhan which they clearly did. If there's nothing to see here, then why lie about something so easily proven? This speaks directly to his credibility.

I have not been following this thread till today - has evidence been presented that Dr. Fauci has been dishonest?

 

[stevil]

In this particular case, it seems unequivocally true that the NIH funded gain-of-function research and that at least some of that research was being done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Additionally, it appears that Fauci directly played a role in approving that research.

In the hearing exchange between Rand and Fauci, Rand made some unsupported accusations, Fauci responded to those accusations and Rand ignored Faucci's rebuttal points.

This is not to say whether NIH did or didn't fund Gain of Function research done in WIV.
Fauci referred to a specific grant which has regular update reports. I haven't seen that grant but I would like to.

With regards to claims that facts and accusations are conflating things, I think this is possible.
Just because NIH funded a specific grant, it doesn't mean they funded everything that WIV does.

So not knowing all the facts, I am on the fence here. I do not agree with Whatbogsends' claim that
"unequivocally true that the NIH funded gain-of-function research and that at least some of that research was being done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology"
I am open to the possibility, but I do not agree that this has been proven.

 

[stevil]

I have not been following this thread till today - has evidence been presented that Dr. Fauci has been dishonest?

Not that I am aware of.