Fauchistas Have Egg on their Faces.

wiscoaster

Well-known member
So, I guess "not telling the truth" is not the moral equivalent of "telling a lie" as per @roscoe

Still, if the truth not told causes harm, that would at the very least be a violation of Fauci's Hippocratic Oath, no?
 

roscoe

Well-known member
So, I guess "not telling the truth" is not the moral equivalent of "telling a lie" as per @roscoe

Still, if the truth not told causes harm, that would at the very least be a violation of Fauci's Hippocratic Oath, no?

So let's take a look at the facts, I guess. We can take it one step at a time.

The NIH funded a non-profit infectious disease research group (EcoHealth Alliance, located in New York) that, as part of their world-wide pandemic studies, were doing research on zoonotic viruses; the grant was specifically to study bat-related coronaviruses, which have long been understood to be a threat to humans. That non-profit group gave a smaller sub-grant ($660,000) to a lab that is under control of the Chinese government (specifically for molecular analysis of the virus proteins). This Chinese lab, which has had long-standing ties to the University of Texas, Galveston, Canadas's National Microbiology Laboratory, and the French International Center on Microbiology Research, has been researching cononaviruses for decades. Since China has been the source for many zoonotic outbreaks, China is the best place to study these types of diseases (their mammalian host populations are frequently in China).

So, is this correct information, as far as you know?

Rand Paul has accused of Fauci of allowing NIH to fund research into the weaponization of coronaviruses, generally ('gain-of-function'). In fact, Paul said on Fox news that Fauci may be responsible for funding the outbreak. Fauci has denied funding this specific type of research at this lab (although he has advocated funding this type of research in the US, to combat potential weaponized viruses).

The questions, then: was the sub-grant funding weaponization of the coronavirus? Could a tiny (by NIH standards) sub-grant, given by a non-profit group attempting to avoid such viruses, somehow be responsible for the outbreak? Given the budget the Chinese government could give to such efforts, why would a tiny sub-grant be significantly contributory to the outbreak, even if the Chinese were intentionally weaponizing the virus (which has not yet been demonstrated)?

BTW - grants are awarded through a process in which a NIH panel reviews the grants, sends them out to scientific reviewers, then awards the best-reviewed grants. I can pretty much guarantee you that no grant application ever crosses Fauci's desk. NIH is huge, and funds tens of thousands of labs doing important medical work around the world. Despite that, Fauci is correct - there are strict regulations about grants, especially for research in collaboration with China, so they would never fund such research.

Overall, it is clear that Rand is either uninformed (unlikely), or lying bald-faced. He knows that Fauci is in no way responsible for the outbreak, but he is trying to score political points with the Trump supporters and conspiracy theorists.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
No one has accused Fauci of being responsible for the outbreak. That's an extrapolation you're making, I think. He is responsible for either covering up facts or for intentionally omitting facts or for giving incorrect "facts", all of which may have been material to the Executive branch administering a better response to the outbreak, and having done so either to his personal benefit and/or to the benefit of the government agencies he's a part of and/or to the benefit of big pharma and other big money interests. He is responsible for not acting for the benefit of the nation, its population and humanity as a whole, and particulary where he was a principal adviser to the President, and a physician to boot. One of the facts he tried to cover up, and what has Paul so hot, was the NIH's role in funding Chinese virology research and especially where gain of function is the object. That funding didn't cause the outbreak, and its association may only be incidental. The outbreak may have happened anyway, funding or no. Yet, attempting to cover it up is disingeous at the very best, and may be a case where an intentional omission is the equivalent of a falsehood, but certainly makes it look like Fauci thinks there's some linkage there he doesn't want to be associated with. As the administrator of the agency that provided the funding, he is responsible for the funding, per the "buck stops here" principle.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
No one has accused Fauci of being responsible for the outbreak. That's an extrapolation you're making, I think. He is responsible for either covering up facts or for intentionally omitting facts or for giving incorrect "facts", all of which may have been material to the Executive branch administering a better response to the outbreak, and having done so either to his personal benefit and/or to the benefit of the government agencies he's a part of and/or to the benefit of big pharma and other big money interests. He is responsible for not acting for the benefit of the nation, its population and humanity as a whole, and particulary where he was a principal adviser to the President, and a physician to boot. One of the facts he tried to cover up, and what has Paul so hot, was the NIH's role in funding Chinese virology research and especially where gain of function is the object. That funding didn't cause the outbreak, and its association may only be incidental. The outbreak may have happened anyway, funding or no. Yet, attempting to cover it up is disingeous at the very best, and may be a case where an intentional omission is the equivalent of a falsehood, but certainly makes it look like Fauci thinks there's some linkage there he doesn't want to be associated with. As the administrator of the agency that provided the funding, he is responsible for the funding, per the "buck stops here" principle.

Right. It looks like you didn't fully read my post. There is no evidence that the NIH grant was given for 'gain of function' research. And there is no evidence that the subcontractor provided the money for such research. Nor is there any evidence that Fauci did anything other than work towards the betterment of the country and the world, especially in his persistence in pushing the actual science in 2020. Just look at his career over the last 30 years - he has been instrumental in fighting disease for our country.

So what is the full in-context evidence that he knew and was covering up something?

But this is Paul's accusation:

1623483761193.png

1623484250451.png
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
... There is no evidence that the NIH grant was given for 'gain of function' research. And there is no evidence that the subcontractor provided the money for such research. ...

Oh, come on, that's a silly accounting semantics dodge. If they knew China was conducting such research, they should never have appropriated the money, period, regardless of what it was specified to be used for, and regardless of any promises of what it was not to be used for. Money appropriated goes into a big pot and that money given just freed up other money to be used for the off-limits purposes. So I think it's a crucial question that needs to be honestly answered. If the answer is yes, then it was a serious error of good judgment. If the answer is yes but was subsequently denied, covered up or even just made light of as not having contributed in any way to the pandemic, then it was malfeasance to some degree or other. And that is "moral culpability" even if found not to be criminal.

But it gets worse than just appropriations: how about the Chinese virologists hosted at the Ft. Detrick bioweapons lab? From a country known for stealing intellectual property? And you expect them to go back to Wuhan and not conduct gain of function bioweapons research?

How stupid are these people heading up our government agencies anyway?
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Oh, come on, that's a silly accounting semantics dodge. If they knew China was conducting such research, they should never have appropriated the money, period, regardless of what it was specified to be used for, and regardless of any promises of what it was not to be used for. Money appropriated goes into a big pot and that money given just freed up other money to be used for the off-limits purposes. So I think it's a crucial question that needs to be honestly answered. If the answer is yes, then it was a serious error of good judgment. If the answer is yes but was subsequently denied, covered up or even just made light of as not having contributed in any way to the pandemic, then it was malfeasance to some degree or other. And that is "moral culpability" even if found not to be criminal.

But it gets worse than just appropriations: how about the Chinese virologists hosted at the Ft. Detrick bioweapons lab? From a country known for stealing intellectual property? And you expect them to go back to Wuhan and not conduct gain of function bioweapons research?

How stupid are these people heading up our government agencies anyway?

Think about it. The Chinese lab has long-standing scientific relationships with major western research disease centers in the US, Canada, and France, doing research on coronaviruses. The sub-grant (which is, by the way, not under NIH control once initial funds are granted) is tiny, and for a very specific question about spiky proteins in coronaviruses. Given all the coronavirus research being done at that lab, in collaborations with foreign institutions, over the decades, suddenly this tiny grant is at all relevant to the outbreak?

China has tens of billions to pour into any research they choose. You think this little $660,000 is somehow contributory to the outbreak? Why would they bother? Do you have any idea of the costs of a virology lab? This was a small genetics study (spiky proteins). By your logic, any money that ever goes to China can be diverted to coronavirus weaponization research. Your smartphone and your sneakers are also culpable.

I know nothing about a virologist at Ft. Detrick (I did google it), but that is a military instillation. If there was a Chinese virologist there, and he stole valuable secrets, then it sounds like we should look at the top of the military chain of command for, you know, where the buck stops. I wonder who that was? Perhaps the Commander-in-Chief?

The original question in this thread was about whether Fauci lied when he said the NIH did not fund the weaponizing of coronaviruses. As far as I can tell, Fauci was absolutely correct. Did NIH fund some research on coronaviruses in China? Yes, indirectly, but not inappropriately, given the long-standing research relationships with western research institutions. But to the main question - in no way did NIH, as alleged by Rand Paul, in some way fund weaponization and the outbreak.

This is politics at its very worst. Rand is trying to destroy the career of a public servant who has given up, probably, millions of dollars of private-sector money to help the country. His successes at slowing HIV and other diseases are well-documented. But because he stood up to Trump, Rand is trying to punish him. I used to have some respect to Rand, but he has erased all of that.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
The original question in this thread was about whether Fauci lied when he said the NIH did not fund the weaponizing of coronaviruses.
That was technically not a lie but involved some very fine semantic hair-splitting and anybody who has to resort to those sorts of tactics has lost my respect and my trust.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
You can't possibly be serious about that.

Read his bio. You think he couldn't make mid-7 figures a year at Merck? With his scientific knowledge, political and scientific connections, and prestige, I estimate he is making less than 10% of what he could in the private sector.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
That was technically not a lie but involved some very fine semantic hair-splitting and anybody who has to resort to those sorts of tactics has lost my respect and my trust.

Honestly, I don't understand what you are referring to. You are 100% confident, and have the evidence to back it, that the Wuhan facility was engineering a weapon out of coronaviruses? And that Fauci was privileged to this top-secret intelligence? And that our funding was somehow involved, even indirectly, with whatever part of the lab was engineering weapons?

Because all of those things have to be true for Fauci to have lied.
 

doubleh

Member
Read his bio. You think he couldn't make mid-7 figures a year at Merck? With his scientific knowledge, political and scientific connections, and prestige, I estimate he is making less than 10% of what he could in the private sector.
I think he is in the political spectrum because he is not competent enough to work in the private sector. I base my opinion on his constant wishy-washy statements during this mess. One day it was this will happen, a couple of days later it was the exact opposite. He isn't even a good politician.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
...I estimate he is making less than 10% of what he could in the private sector.
You don't have to estimate ... it's a matter of public record. His current salary for his position is some $434,000 a year, which is more than the President's salary of $400,000, BTW. The median salary for an outside director at a Fortune 500 company is about $250,000. Presuming he would be a desirable director of a big pharma company and/or other Fortune 100 companies, more than that. An individual such as him in the private sector could sit on possibly as many as four or five boards of non-competing companies. Making it altogether possible to have a post-retirement income of $1,000,000 a year or more, plus the likely stock or warrant bonuses on top of that, and this for working maybe 10 or 15 days a year for each director position.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
You don't have to estimate ... it's a matter of public record. His current salary for his position is some $434,000 a year, which is more than the President's salary of $400,000.

Oh yes, I know - all federal and state salaries are public. Again, a fraction of what he would make at big pharma, with stock options, and other incentives (the estimation). And I would rather our top medical person in the US Govt make the top amount - better than our top politician, or top tax official, or top transportation official, etc. It shows that our priorities are in the right place, for once.
 
Last edited:

Selena

Active member
Honestly, I don't understand what you are referring to. You are 100% confident, and have the evidence to back it, that the Wuhan facility was engineering a weapon out of coronaviruses? And that Fauci was privileged to this top-secret intelligence? And that our funding was somehow involved, even indirectly, with whatever part of the lab was engineering weapons?

Because all of those things have to be true for Fauci to have lied.
Then the man isn't corrupt, just a patsy? Interesting defense.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Then the man isn't corrupt, just a patsy? Interesting defense.

No, because we don't know if any of the premises are true. The argument is of the form;

If a and b and c are (all) true
then d is true.

This is why the argument that Fauci is a liar is logically weak. It can fail at several places. And since we have no evidence that any of the premises are true, Rand Paul isn't getting much traction. Look over Paul's actual comments - you will see he is pretty tentative, even as Laura Ingraham is trying to draw him into big accusations. Paul is smart enough to know he is dancing on thin ice, even as he is trying to gin up outrage.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
You don't have to estimate ... it's a matter of public record. His current salary for his position is some $434,000 a year, which is more than the President's salary of $400,000, BTW. The median salary for an outside director at a Fortune 500 company is about $250,000. Presuming he would be a desirable director of a big pharma company and/or other Fortune 100 companies, more than that. An individual such as him in the private sector could sit on possibly as many as four or five boards of non-competing companies. Making it altogether possible to have a post-retirement income of $1,000,000 a year or more, plus the likely stock or warrant bonuses on top of that, and this for working maybe 10 or 15 days a year for each director position.

In case you think I am making this up:

1623619738804.png
 

Selena

Active member
No, because we don't know if any of the premises are true. The argument is of the form;

If a and b and c are (all) true
then d is true.

This is why the argument that Fauci is a liar is logically weak. It can fail at several places. And since we have no evidence that any of the premises are true, Rand Paul isn't getting much traction. Look over Paul's actual comments - you will see he is pretty tentative, even as Laura Ingraham is trying to draw him into big accusations. Paul is smart enough to know he is dancing on thin ice, even as he is trying to gin up outrage.
The priest always told me that just one lie made one a liar. I tend to believe his standards more than yours.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
If you contradict yourself publicly for any reason other than having found additional relevant data then you are lying.

Those are the ethical standards that you imposed on Donald Trump, aren't they?
 

roscoe

Well-known member
The priest always told me that just one lie made one a liar. I tend to believe his standards more than yours.

Read the thread above a little more carefully. Fauci wasn't lying. The question is one of determination. All of the premises have to be true for his statement to have been a lie. And we have no evidence that any of them are true. All we have are wild accusations from Rand Paul.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
If you contradict yourself publicly for any reason other than having found additional relevant data then you are lying.

Those are the ethical standards that you imposed on Donald Trump, aren't they?

Trump's lies are so numerous that virtually any standard applies. For Fauci, what are the quoted contradictions?
 
Top