Ocasio-Cortez won't call Gaza war a genocide, another lying politician

@ElwoodBlues The information you have posted are articles published by [b]Science Immunology, and Nature Communications.[/b] They are platforms accessible to every Tom, Dick, and Mary with a PhD and a story to tell.

Do you know how many PhDs there are out there writing and publishing papers that other Phds don't ever read? It is sad but true. Besides coming here to chat with you bozos, I am subscribed to one of these websites where I engage academics in discussions on papers they submit. They are all well-educated and do have interesting theories to present. Theories, and that's all! Otherwise, they would not be there giving away marketable intellectual property.

I am sorry, man. I can't wade through the bullshit in the articles you want me to look at. I am a very educated man, Elwood. Academics don't impress me. Not even if they are as rich and famous as Fauci.

@sree251 Remember when you said
[quote] Can you cite the publication? For your sake, I pledge to read it and revert with my comments for a discussion. [/quote]

Now we both know your" pledge" is worthless, [b]LOL!!![/b]

I get it though, it's more important to you to maintain your precious ignorance than to face the possibility that you might be wrong, [b]ROTFL!!![/b]

@ElwoodBlues Your responses are nothing but obsessive propaganda and promotions for the vaccine. Why are you like this?

You say "my weakest claim is that evolved variants have reduced virulence," and prior to that you said "population resistance to covid has increased, and it has evolved to a much more mild form."

Covid became milder when omicron emerged. Omicron affects the lungs much less, and it has been the dominant variant. It is more infectious, but less severe. It has nothing to do with the vaccine. The vaccine can only cause some people to not get very sick; it can't make the population resistant or evolve covid to a milder form.

You never want to have a real exchange with real words and real ideas, do you?

@badlands Another failure on your part to read to the end. The last paper I cited actually supports my case.

[b][i] Immune Escape by SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern - Science Immunology (2021):[/i][/b]

This article explores how some variants can partially evade immune responses. However, it highlights that these variants still face significant immune pressure from vaccination and prior infection, making complete escape unlikely.
[b]https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.abj1750[/b]

[quote] It has nothing to do with the vaccine.[/quote]
Have you got any scientific studies you can cite to back that up, or is it more baseless speculation??

Oh, wait, you never cite anything, so I guess I have my answer, [b]LOL!!![/b]

@ElwoodBlues You said: "Have you got any scientific studies you can cite to back that up, or is it more baseless speculation??"

All scientific studies are baseless. Let me cite you an example. There was this guy who had a flea circus. He demonstrated a proof that supported his conclusion that fleas go deaf when their legs are tied. He told his fleas to jump, and they jumped. When he had tied their legs, he told them to jump but they didn't. And that was the proof of his discovery that fleas go deaf when their legs are tied.

Even Newton's proof that gravity exist is baseless. Only fools believe that they can fall off a roof because of gravity.

@ElwoodBlues What do you think that study is saying?

You claimed the following:

[quote]Thanks mostly to the vaccines, population resistance to covid has increased, and it has evolved to a much more mild form.[/quote]

This is not true. Do I need to further explain why?

The study you have included does not address the above claims, which are false claims. It addresses vaccine efficacy against new variants, but it does not address how or why there is population resistance to covid or how covid has come to evolve to a "milder form" due to the vaccines. It said that AstraZeneca was found not to be very effective in providing lasting immunity in South Africa, as the number was only 22%. "Reduced efficacy" was also reported in J&J and Novavax, according to its findings. It says that a single vaccination is "sufficient" in individuals who had previously recovered from covid, not in individuals who had not had or previously recovered from covid.

What is your point? That vaccines can provide lasting immunity to people who have had covid and already have natural immunity? [b]LOL!!![/b]

@badlands claims [quote]but it does not address how or why there is population resistance to covid[/quote]
DEAD WRONG!!

The study contradicts the above in the abstract!!
[quote] [b]Vaccination-induced antibodies[/b] cross-neutralized the variants B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 ... In conclusion, this study shows that some variants can partially escape humoral immunity [b]induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection[/b] or BNT162b2 vaccination, but S-specific CD4+ T cell activation is not affected by the mutations in the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants. [/quote]

Not to mention[quote]This study analyzed data from over 600,000 people in the United States who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. It found that the vaccines were highly effective in preventing hospitalization, ICU admission, and death from COVID-19, with effectiveness ranging from 88% to 97% depending on the variant and the number of vaccine doses received.[/quote] Are you suggesting it's random chance that those 600,000 mRNA vaccinated people experienced far lower rates of hospitalization etc?

You go on to say:
[quote]It says that a single vaccination is "sufficient" in individuals who had previously recovered from covid, not in individuals who had not had or previously recovered from covid.[/quote]
It must have escaped your attention that the mRNA vaccines require TWO vaccinations. And it must have escaped your attention that for AstraZenica, "the recommended dosage is two doses given intramuscularly (0.5ml each) with an interval of 8 to 12 weeks." Yeah, they were giving single doses in the early days to stretch meager supplies and provide partial protection to a larger population.

But everybody always knew a pair of doses was better. Why?? Because the clinical trials were conducted with two doses!!
[b]https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/astrazeneca-us-vaccine-trial-met-primary-endpoint.html#[/b]


@sree251 says [quote]All scientific studies are baseless.[/quote]
[quote]Even Newton's proof that gravity exist is baseless.[/quote]
Thus, in your mind, your GiAnTt CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRy speculations about Fauci are equivalent to Newton's Laws.
[b][big]!!! ROTFL !!![/big][/b]

@ElwoodBlues You said: "Thus, in your mind, your GiAnTt CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRy speculations about Fauci are equivalent to Newton's Laws.
!!! ROTFL !!!"

I made no speculations about Fauci. You must have mistaken me from someone else. I have no medical training but Senator Rand Paul has, and he has accused Fauci of covering up how Covid pandemic started. US intelligence agencies found no evidence indicating that it started at the Wuhan lab but did not rule out the possibility. The FBI said that it did start there. The Chinese government refuted claims that Covid started in China. The point is this: What the hell was Fauci doing at the Wuhan lab funded by the US government? Fauci was giving Rand Paul the runaround.

@sree251 You said [quote] Trump says it's a Chinese virus because it came from China. What was Fauci doing at Wuhan, the epi-center, with a US funded gain-of-function research program? China has denied that Covid originated at the Wuhan lab. This is as befuddling as the assassination of President John F Kennedy.
[/quote]
That's you speculating about Fauci, employing classic conspiracy theory dog-whistles like "gain-of-function."

[quote]The point is this: What the hell was Fauci doing at the Wuhan lab funded by the US government?[/quote]
I can find no evidence that Fauci ever set foot in the Wuhan lab. Perhaps you can link us to better info about Fauci's comings and goings to China. It's hard to prove a negative; I may have missed something.

One thing we know: [quote] In 2014, the NIH awarded a grant to the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance to study the risk of the future emergence of coronaviruses from bats...

EcoHealth ultimately received $3.7 million over six years from the NIH and distributed nearly $600,000 of that total to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, a collaborator on the project, pre-approved by NIH. [/quote]
Did Fauci have anything to do with that $3.7 million grant to EcoHealth? Did Fauci have anything to do with the $600K that EcoHealth provided to Wuhan?

Sure sounds to me like you're STILL spreading GiAnTt CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRiEs!!!

@ElwoodBlues You say: "and it has evolved to a much more mild form", and you said this after saying: "thanks mostly to the vaccines, population resistance to covid has increased."

Why do you think covid has evolved to a milder form? What are you talking about?

Do you understand that you have been vaccinated for a disease that was engineered by the almighty Fauci, the same man you see as benevolent and trustworthy, whom you have no questions for?

The first vaccine comes in two doses, and any dose after that is considered a booster or an updated vaccine. If you read the study, you will see that the conclusion is what I said it was. Vaccines can provide lasting immunity to those who already have natural immunity. What do you find so special about that?

@ElwoodBlues You said: "Did Fauci have anything to do with that $3.7 million grant to EcoHealth? Did Fauci have anything to do with the $600K that EcoHealth provided to Wuhan?

Sure sounds to me like you're STILL spreading GiAnTt CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRiEs!!!"

I am spreading nothing but researching articles on Fauci's involvement. Below is an excerpt from a publication for your reading pleasure.


[b]The new email states that the bat virus discovered with NIH help is 92 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2, while RaTG13 is 96 percent similar across its genome. It’s not clear whether this is a mistake or refers to a different virus.

It is clear that a preprint authored by Wuhan Institute of Virology Senior Scientist Shi Zhengli about the similarity between SARS-CoV-2 and the bat virus it discovered, RaTG13, published on January 24, 2020, set off major alarm bells among the leaders of the NIH.

An email previously reported by U.S. Right to Know indicates that Collins and Fauci were concerned in February 2020 about whether NIH could be traced to Wuhan Institute of Virology Senior Scientist Zhengli Shi’s research shortly after she published a preprint about RaTG13.

“Note strongest similarity of 2019 nCoV to Bat Cov RaTG13. Obviously the details of that comparison will be critical,” Collins wrote to Fauci on February 1, 2020. “No evidence this work was supported by NIH.”[/b]

@sree251 Did Fauci have anything to do with that $3.7 million grant to EcoHealth? Did Fauci have anything to do with the $600K that EcoHealth provided to Wuhan?

Looks like the answer, which you refuse to provide, is [b]NO.[/b]

Meanwhile, you continue to spread CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRiEs about Fauci having some connection to Wuhan. BTW, the email you quoted only shows a concern by Collins; not Fauci.

You said:
[quote]All scientific studies are baseless.[/quote]
[quote]Even Newton's proof that gravity exist is baseless.[/quote]
Thus, in your mind, your GiAnTt CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRy speculations about Fauci are equivalent to Newton's Laws.
[big]!!! ROTFL !!![/big]

@ElwoodBlues [quote]Did Fauci have anything to do with that $3.7 million grant to EcoHealth? Did Fauci have anything to do with the $600K that EcoHealth provided to Wuhan?

Looks like the answer, which you refuse to provide, is NO.[/quote]

Below is more dope on Fauci's involvement or rather lack thereof while sleeping on the job. He was the top honcho at NIH that provided all the grants to EcoHealth.


[b] The watchdog report, written by the Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Inspector General, did not address whether the EcoHealth experiments posed a risk or represented so-called gain of function studies, in which viruses are endowed with new abilities. But it criticized the N.I.H. for failing to keep track of EcoHealth’s work.

“N.I.H. did not adequately monitor EcoHealth’s grant awards in accordance with its policies and procedures and other federal requirements,” the report said. The watchdog chided the N.I.H. for, among other things, failing to demand a progress report that was two years late and that health officials later said contained evidence of viral growth in experiments that was supposed to have been reported immediately.

“It’s a damning indictment of N.I.H.,” said Lawrence O. Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University who has been informally advising the White House on health security issues.

“This report really is the first truly independent and nonpartisan review of N.I.H. procedures with research on enhanced pathogens,” he said, “and it shows grave errors in following N.I.H.’s own rules and also in just a diligent monitoring and oversight that the public would expect.”

The report covered three N.I.H. grants to EcoHealth between 2014 and 2021, totaling about $8 million. In 2016 and 2018, the report said, health officials imposed additional safeguards on EcoHealth research, requiring that the group notify them if coronaviruses generated in its experiments showed signs of becoming more dangerous.

But the N.I.H. decided not to refer the grants to a higher-level review committee charged with weighing the risks and benefits of research involving pathogens with the potential of starting a pandemic.[/b]

@sree251 The name Fauci does not appear in the material you quoted. Thus, you still have failed to provide a SHRED of evidence that Fauci had anything to do with the EcoHealth grants. He was not involved with those grants according to your evidence.

BTW, NIH grants are for very specific subjects, and each different subject has its own Scientific Review Group (usually a revolving group of independent scientists) headed by a Scientific Review Officer who works for NIH. As an employee, Fauci could have served as an SRO for a grant to EcoHealth. Your lack of evidence says he did NOT.

I believe grantees submit regular reports back to NIH. Was Fauci involved or tasked in any way with reviewing such reports? Your lack of evidence says he was NOT.

You said:
[quote]All scientific studies are baseless.[/quote] and
[quote]Even Newton's proof that gravity exist is baseless.[/quote]
Thus, in your mind, your GiAnTt CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRy speculations about Fauci are equivalent to Newton's Laws.
[big]!!! ROTFL !!![/big]

@ElwoodBlues You asked: "did Fauci have anything to do with that $3.7 million grant to EcoHealth? Did Fauci have anything to do with the $600K that EcoHealth provided to Wuhan?"

Why do you ask this? Fauci was director of the NIAID, and he would oversee its research and projects. Do you know what a director is?

You also said: "meanwhile, you continue to spread CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRiEs about Fauci having some connection to Wuhan."

sree251 is a speaker of truth. He has not disseminated any conspiracy theories. To the contrary, he has told you what happened and supplied you with evidence. You are here to lie and to distort the truth. In every response, you avoid our questions and twist and misrepresent our words and the words of others. What are you?

[u][b]Here is the truth[/b][/u]

Fauci funds gain-of-function:

[quote]In a 2012 video, Dr. Fauci stated at a medical conference that gain-of-function research includes reverse genetics. In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. a grant to study bat coronaviruses, allowing the nonprofit to test coronavirus transmission by using reverse genetics. EcoHealth Alliance then awarded taxpayer funds to the WIV.[/quote]

Fauci lied about the above:

[quote]In May 2021, Dr. Fauci testified under oath that the “NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research” at the WIV, appearing to contradict his earlier comments.[/quote]

Comer and Jordan then sent this letter to Fauci:

[i]Dear Dr. Fauci:[/i]

[i]House Republicans remain concerned about the origins of COVID-19, including the increasing possibility it originated and subsequently leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China.[/i]

[i]At a 2012 conference entitled “Gain-of-Function Research on HPA1 H5N1 Viruses,” you said, “[w]hat historically investigators have done is to actually create gain-of-function by making mutations, passage adoption, or other genetic techniques, such as reverse genetics.”[/i]

[i]In 2014, you, through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. (EcoHealth) a grant entitled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.” This grant allowed EcoHealth to “[t]est predictions of [coronavirus]…transmission…using reverse genetics…”Funds from this grant were subsequently awarded to the WIV. Using your own definition, it appears the NIH funded gain-of-function research at the WIV.[/i]

[i]On May 11, 2021, while testifying under oath, you stated, “[t]he NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the [WIV].” This appears to contradict your 2012 statement regarding gain-of-function research and the WIV.[/i]

[i]Can you please confirm the authenticity of the 2012 video accessible on the YouTube platform? Further, please verify that the 2014 grant description is accurate and explain the apparent discrepancy in your recent testimony?[/i]

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-jordan-press-fauci-about-taxpayer-funded-controversial-research-at-wuhan-lab/

NIH later admitted to funding gain-of-function in Wuhan, but said the bat coronaviruses they "studied" could not have become covid-19.

They would say that, of course.

@badlands says [quote] Fauci was director of the NIAID, and he would oversee its research and projects.[/quote] DEAD WRONG!
You didn't read about the Scientific Review Groups, did you?

The director is like a four star general. There are hundreds of squads of Scientific Review Groups. The general doesn't oversee every squad; that's why he has colonels and majors and captains! NIH hands out $45 billion in research grants every year. EcoHealth got a $3.7 million grant. Do the math - that's one twelve-thousandth of the yearly budget. Do you really think the director pays special attention to 1/12000 of the budget??

Fauci, at his high level, is FAR REMOVED from individual grant decisions. Those are made, as I explained above, by groups (with revolving membership) of independent scientists called Scientific Review Groups (with one NIH member). Congress doesn't want the NIH to play favorites, so the rules keep groups at arms length from the NIH and keep the memberships mixing.[i] (I find myself having to explain important stuff like the review groups to you TWICE, @badlands. Why is that? Do you have reading problems??)[/i]

Comer & Jordan's letter assumes that reverse genetics is synonymous with gain-of-function. The truth is, most reverse genetics changes cause LOSS of function. Reverse genetics and gain of function are NOT synonymous.
[quote] [b]What is Reverse Genetics?[/b]
... Altering the genetic sequence in reverse genetics typically involves directed deletions and point mutations (site-directed mutagenesis) to create null alleles (non-functional); such as gene knockouts.

In mice, this can create an organism with a specific gene ‘knocked-out’ and the phenotype of the animal can then be observed. Knockouts lead to permanent loss-of-function genetic organisms (or cells) from birth.[/quote] [b]https://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Reverse-Genetics.aspx[/b]

[quote]NIH later admitted to funding gain-of-function in Wuhan[/quote] FALSE.
And you can't produce a quote where NIH says otherwise.

Here's what a fact checker says
[quote]But we see no reason to change the Two Pinocchio rating we awarded Paul. There is a split in the scientific community about what constitutes gain-of-function research. To this day, NIH says this research did not meet the criteria — a stance that is not an outlier in the scientific community. Indeed, it appears as if EcoHealth halted the experiment as soon as it seemed to veer in that direction.

Meanwhile, Cotton and Cruz are spinning the letter as confirming what it does not say. They are welcome to offer an opinion about its meaning. But, so far, it’s not a fact that NIH has admitted funding gain-of-function research. So they also earn Two Pinocchios.[/quote]

So your attempt to blame a general for events on the squad level failed, and your attempt to use a letter from politicians to understand genetic research also failed. NICE WORK😂🤣

@badlands [quote]Why do you ask this? Fauci was director of the NIAID, and he would oversee its research and projects. Do you know what a director is? [/quote]

Elwood opined that Fauci can't oversee everything in the NIH. This may be true just as the US President can't be directly supervising every move the CIA makes in Gambia. But he can't disavow any screw up. Neither can Fauci. The buck stops with him.

The CEO of BP was removed after the Deep Horizon mishap in the Gulf of Mexico.

@ElwoodBlues DEaD WRoNg!

Fauci said:

[quote]We had a big scare with SARS-CoV-1 {SARS] back in 2002, 2003 where that particular virus unquestionably went from a bat to an intermediate host to start an epidemic and a pandemic that resulted in 8,000 cases and close to 800 deaths. It would have been almost a dereliction of our duty if we didn’t study this, and the only way you can study these things is you’ve got to go where the action is.[/quote]

[quote]You don’t want to study bats in Fairfax County, Virginia, to find out what the animal-human interface is that might lead to a jumping of species. [/quote]

https://news.grabien.com/story-fauci-admits-modest-nih-funding-wuhan-lab-denies-gain-functi

Fauci knew that bat coronaviruses were being studied.

The letter NIH sent to Comer:



What did Fauci do?

[quote]Dr. Fauci served as NIAID Director from 1984 to 2022. He oversaw an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis, and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola, Zika, and COVID-19. He also led the NIAID research effort on transplantation and immune-related illnesses, including autoimmune disorders, asthma, and allergies. [/quote]

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director

Fauci approved the 3.7 million project in 2015:


Fauci knew about the cancellation of funds at NIC, despite only being a director:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dr-fauci-congress-coronavirus-testimony-grant-research-wuhan-lab-a9585886.html

The US government are CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRiSTs for cancelling funds in 2020, after covid-19 hit the planet! Is that what you are going to say?

@badlands Thank you for acknowledging that Fauci can't oversee everything in the NIH. And thank you for the two quotes from Fauci from 2021. And thank you for the images of letters from NIH.

Let's start with the 2021 Fauci quotes. Yes, in 2021, when Comer & Jordan politicized the EcoHealth grant, Fauci was aware of it. That doesn't mean Fauci was aware in 2014 when the money was granted; nor that Fauci was aware of the unexpected binding to ACE2 in a mouse model in 2018 or 2019; only that he learned about it once it became politicized. [quote]Fauci knew that bat coronaviruses were being studied.[/quote] He knew in 2021 after it had become politicized.

Next, the NIH letter. The letter never mentions gain-of-function; instead it refers to ePPP; presumably a similar concept. And the letter says the proposed research did NOT meet the definition of ePPP. So, despite right-wing lies, there is NO ADMISSION of gain of function research or anything similar. Your URL even mentions the denial of gain of function: https://news.grabien.com/story-fauci-admits-modest-nih-funding-wuhan-lab-denies-gain-functi

Regarding the letter from Dr Christina Lin, it asserts without evidence that the $3.7 million grant was "approved by ... Fauci in 2015." Does she have his signature on an approval letter? NO. Does she have his name on anything associated with the grant? NO. The only connection between Fauci and the grant is that he is a director in an agency that grants $45 billion per year.

I have already explained to you TWICE about NIH Scientific Review Groups and their arms-length relationship to prevent favoritism. Why do you ignore that? Did you think I made it up? Strangely, Dr Lin fails to mention them as well. Why? because it completely undermines her claim that Fauci "approved" the grant in any reasonable sense of the word "approve." Again, that grant is 1/12000 of the NIH grant budget. How many of Fauci's 2000 working hours per year do you suppose he puts into studying a grant for 1/12000 of the budget?

[quote]Fauci knew about the cancellation of funds at NIC, despite only being a director:[/quote] Once it became politicized, and NIH staff knew there would be questions, then yes, Fauci was briefed. Again, ZERO evidence that Fauci knew about it at the time of cancellation. Only that, like any good staff, they briefed their spokesman on expected questions.

Again, thanks for providing quotes from Fauci from late May of 2021; however, they tell us nothing about what Fauci knew in 2015-2019. Thanks again for the NIH letter; it denies ePPP and makes no mention of gain-of-function. The letter from Dr Lin is useless. She's not a medical doctor; her Ph.D. is in "International Political Economy and Security Studies." All she proves is that she doesn't understand the role Scientific Review Groups play in NIH funding.

In short, you have NIH's DENIAL of ePOPP, and you still have ZERO evidence that Fauci knew anything about the grant to EcoHealth until long after the fact when he was briefed to answer questions.

[sep][sep][sep][sep]

@sree251 says [quote]The CEO of BP was removed after the Deep Horizon mishap in the Gulf of Mexico.[/quote] It's nothing but a right-wing fantasy that the EcoHealth grant had any connection with the pandemic.

Again, you are equating your GiAnTt CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRy with Newton's laws, [big]ROTFL!!![/big]

@ElwoodBlues [quote] It's nothing but a right-wing fantasy that the EcoHealth grant had any connection with the pandemic.

Again, you are equating your GiAnTt CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRy with Newton's laws, ROTFL!!!
[/quote]

I have seen your reply to badlands' post showing you what went on at the NIH. You have your own perception of reality pertaining to executive responsibility. Granted, no CEO can know everything that goes on in the organization but that doesn't absolve him/her from accountability.

I don't think a discussion on Newton's law is your cup of tea.

@ElwoodBlues Where did I acknowledge that?

Fauci said: "it would have been almost a dereliction of our duty if we didn’t study this, and the only way you can study these things is you’ve got to go where the action is. We had a modest collaboration with very respectable Chinese scientists who are world experts on coronavirus, and we did that through a subgrant from a larger grant. The purpose of it was to study the animal-human interface to do surveillance, and to determine if these bat viruses were capable of infecting humans."

It's in the video!

He says this after acknowledging that coronavirus research was being done, and he explained why they were researching bats by saying: "we had a big scare with SARS-CoV-1 {SARS] back in 2002, 2003 where that particular virus unquestionably went from a bat to an intermediate host to start an epidemic and a pandemic that resulted in 8,000 cases and close to 800 deaths."

This was not knowledge that Fauci came to have after the emergence of covid-19. He told us what they were doing and why they were doing it. That is, after his previous lies. He may deny that it is gain-of-function, but it is gain-of-function.

You say "Fauci was briefed", but how can we know this is true? Who was he briefed by? No source! Had Fauci been briefed when he told us why the research was being done? Are you his lawyer? Do you work for Fauci?

Why do you continue to deny that Fauci knew about important research, especially when he tells us he knew? If Fauci did not give his approval for this project and similar projects, why does he know about them, and why is he able to explain why they happen?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687304/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK284991/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-018-0175-7

Is Fauci not aware of Ralph Baric's work? How?!

Fauci denied ever meeting Ralph, but he knows him well.

University of Maryland professor Matt Frieman, friend of Baric, said in an email:


Fauci had a meeting with Ralph in his calendar: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23698494-fauci-exhibit-17

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/fauci-i-doubt-if-ive-ever-met-him

Fauci approved of and was aware of research into bat coronaviruses and gain-of-function. NIH had a five-year contract with the lab in Wuhan. These things require oversight. US government is providing the dollars and there is ongoing research occurring over half a decade. This is research that Fauci explained the reasons for, and whose friend and associate is an expert in.

What kind of man believes that top scientist Fauci didn't know about gain-of-function research, Ralph Baric's research with Zhengli Shi, and what was being funded by the US government and by his NIAID? You!

Important articles:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/06/29/1027290/gain-of-function-risky-bat-virus-engineering-links-america-to-wuhan/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151110115711.htm

https://theintercept.com/2023/06/17/covid-origin-wuhan-patient-zero

@ElwoodBlues [quote]Yes, in 2021, when Comer & Jordan politicized the EcoHealth grant, Fauci was aware of it.[/quote]

[quote]Once it became politicized, and NIH staff knew there would be questions, then yes, Fauci was briefed. [/quote]

[quote]It's nothing but a right-wing fantasy that the EcoHealth grant had any connection with the pandemic.[/quote]

You politicized the pandemic. The above statements reveal all we need to know about you, Elwood. You and your kind call pursuing the truth "politicizing" and discount what is known to be truth as "right wing fantasies."

Lies, lies, and more lies. Have you never known truth?

@badlands [quote] Lies, lies, and more lies. Have you never known truth?
[/quote]

You seem intent on skinning this cat in a white shirt.

@badlands
[quote]You politicized the pandemic.[/quote] Actually, Trump politicized the pandemic.

Here is Trump, in Sept 2020, politicizing the pandemic by blaming Covid deaths on blue (democratic) states.
[quote]"So we’re down in this territory," Trump said, pointing to a graph that the White House first unveiled in the spring which showed two estimated ranges of possible death tolls depending on efforts to slow the spread of the virus. "And that’s despite the fact that the blue states had had tremendous death rates. If you take the blue states out, we’re at a level that I don’t think anybody in the world would be at. We’re really at a very low level. But some of the states, they were blue states and blue state-managed."[/quote]

Yep, Trump, the guy who said “With smaller testing we would show fewer cases,” was the first to politicize the pandemic. But if you wait a while, you'll find the death toll accelerated in red states; Trump's blame attempt backfired.

[quote]It's in the video![/quote] And WHEN was the video made?

[quote]This was not knowledge that Fauci came to have after the emergence of covid-19. He told us what they were doing and why they were doing it.[/quote] Fauci was briefed on the teeny tiny $3.7 million dollar grant long after the fact. When he says "we" he's talking about the whole institution. Who briefed him? Irrelevant. He was a spokesman and good staff prepare for likely questions - especially after Senators start airing GiAnTt CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRiEs!!

[quote] but it is gain-of-function. [/quote] Evidence? Of course not!!

[quote]Why do you continue to deny that Fauci knew about important research, especially when he tells us he knew?[/quote] I don't deny he knew; I say he knew the details after the fact when he was briefed on it. It's cute that in your mind, "important research" == 1/12000 of the budget, [b]LOL!!![/b]

[quote]Is Fauci not aware of Ralph Baric's work? How?![/quote] Perhaps in general terms he was aware at the time - everybody knew SARS and MERS were coronaviruses, and many suspected a zoonotic origin. There's no evidence Fauci was aware of the ACE2 binding in Wuhan.

BTW, you failed to give the date of Matt Frieman's email about Baric. It's Feb. 18, 2020. Baric was one of the world's foremost experts on coronaviruses - NATURALLY Fauci would speak with him while a coronavirus was raging across Europe and getting established in the US. On Feb 10, Trump said “Looks like by April, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away,” but only fools believed Trump about the virus.


[quote]Fauci denied ever meeting Ralph, but he knows him well.[/quote] A guy like Fauci meets dozens of people per week; you think he remembers every single one? BTW, I'm suspicious of this alleged "denial." Please show us where Fauci "denied" ever meeting Ralph Baric.

Oh, wait, I found it. And naturally, it's not a denial at all, [b]LOL!!![/b]
Fauci says he is AWARE of Baric, then:
[quote] “But you don’t remember ever meeting him in person?” he was asked.

“I don’t recall. I could have met him. I run into several thousands of scientists that we refer to, but I don’t recall, certainly, having a relationship with him,” Fauci responded.[/quote]

You cited a pair of Baric's papers that reached publication in 2015. NIH put a pause on gain of function funding in Oct 2014. It's quite possible that research approved and initiated in 2014 didn't emerge out of the publication pipeline until a year later. Fauci's name is not on either paper, and the work conforms to 2014 NIH guidelines.

The 2018 Nature article is different. It is proposing a loss-of-function coronavirus as a vaccine candidate. [quote]Coronaviruses (CoVs) all reproduce with conserved replication strategies, emphasizing the strength and rapidly adaptable potential of a vaccine design platform that takes advantage of this biology...

[b]Results[/b]
The 3-nt TRN mutant is attenuated for virulence [/quote]
"attenuated for virulence" is another way of saying loss-of-function.

[quote]Fauci approved of and was aware of research into bat coronaviruses and gain-of-function. [/quote] Funding for such research was curtailed in Oct 2014. You STILL have presented ZERO evidence that the EcoHealth grant was doing gain-of-function research. BTW, nor that Fauci had any awareness of that grant. How many times do I have to explain about the ratio of a $3.7 million grant to a $45 billion budget?

How many times do I have to explain about how NIH grants are for very specific subjects, and each different subject has its own Scientific Review Group - a revolving group of independent scientists?

How many times do I have to explain that Fauci is like a general, and he doesn't know the assignment of every little squad under his command? What Fauci spoke about in 2021 was what he was briefed about in 2021, in response to the conspiracy theories of 2021.

It's interesting how you keep ignoring the DATES when things were published or said. Your connections between Fauci and the EcoHealth grant are all based on comments made in 2021. Your claims about Dr Ralph Baric are based on research he did in 2014-2015 when the guidelines were different. I understand how it happens - you are getting your info from right-wing conspiracy theory sites, and they ignore the dates because including them wrecks the narrative!!

You have FAILED to connect Fauci to the EcoHealth grant, and you have FAILED to demonstrate that he knew the details of the ACE2 binding results at the time. All your GiAnTt CoNsPiRaCy ThEoRiEs evaporate under close examination!!

@sree251 says [quote]I have seen your reply[/quote]
Translation: you didn't read it😂🤣
AND, despite your ignorance of its contents, you pretend your "critique" has something other than comedy value😂🤣😂🤣