Fauchistas Have Egg on their Faces.

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
Lessee: Masks, no masks, two masks, three masks, Impossible for covid to come from Wuhan lab, possible for covid to come from Wuhan lab, etc, etc.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Lessee: Masks, no masks, two masks, three masks, Impossible for covid to come from Wuhan lab, possible for covid to come from Wuhan lab, etc, etc.

You do realize that the reason he changed on masks was because the conditions on the ground had changed, and new data had come in.

That is exactly what a scientist should do. It is not a religious doctrine.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
In case you think I am making this up:

I don't understand your purpose in posting that chart. If you think Fauci has what it takes to be a successful Fortune 100 CEO, and you're saying that's what he gave up to serve in the public sector you are deluding yourself. I have personally known Fortune 100 CEO's and I think I know. There's a huge difference between public and private sector administration, execution and leadership, and between the type of person that is successful at each. The highest level Fauci would ever have achieved in the private sector is maybe administrator of some medium-sized hospital in some medium-sized city.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
You do realize that the reason he changed on masks was because the conditions on the ground had changed, and new data had come in.

That is exactly what a scientist should do. It is not a religious doctrine.
Right. Conditions on the ground:
1) Condition: there aren't enough masks available for both health care workers and the general population. Therefore science dictates masks do no good for the general population and they shouldn't be wearing them.
2) Condition: there are plenty of masks available for everybody. Therefore science dictates the masks are effective and everybody should wear one.
What scientifically changed about the properties of the masks other than their availability? Nothing else about the masks themselves changed. Sounds like pretty spooky science to me.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Right. Conditions on the ground:
1) Condition: there aren't enough masks available for both health care workers and the general population. Therefore science dictates masks do no good for the general population and they shouldn't be wearing them.
2) Condition: there are plenty of masks available for everybody. Therefore science dictates the masks are effective and everybody should wear one.
What scientifically changed about the properties of the masks other than their availability? Nothing else about the masks themselves changed. Sounds like pretty spooky science to me.

Fauci was prioritizing the people with the highest likelihood of exposure. We didn't yet really know the importance of preventing during casual contact with a population with lower levels.

People keep trying to 'catch' Fauci out. The whole thing is just a product of fixation on him because he stood up to Trump. In the scientific and medical world, his consistent pro-science stand, irrespective of the politics, has earned him near-universal acclaim. But no one has ever said he might not make a mistake, just that his priorities were always on the health of the US population, rather than the politics of the moment.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
I don't understand your purpose in posting that chart. If you think Fauci has what it takes to be a successful Fortune 100 CEO, and you're saying that's what he gave up to serve in the public sector you are deluding yourself. I have personally known Fortune 100 CEO's and I think I know. There's a huge difference between public and private sector administration, execution and leadership, and between the type of person that is successful at each. The highest level Fauci would ever have achieved in the private sector is maybe administrator of some medium-sized hospital in some medium-sized city.

You misunderstand. I am referring to the fact that, once he had established himself as a major mover in the government, he would have been invaluable to a large pharma corporation. He received the US Presidential Medal of Freedom from G. Bush 2 in 2008, 13 years ago. At that point, he could have written his own ticket in the private sphere. And yes, he would have made many millions in big pharma - as CEO, board chair, head of division, lobbyist, etc. He is obviously a massively capable man as researcher, head administrator, organizational navigator, and leader.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Fauci was prioritizing the people with the highest likelihood of exposure.
Yes, of course, a reasonable and appropriate course of action. Which didn't justify lying about the effectiveness of masks. Apparently he thinks the American people as a whole are just plain stupid and selfish and can't be relied upon to be given the truth and the facts and to be relied upon to make the correct decisions. This is not the way to lead a free people. This is the way to tyranny and to rule over a subject people.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
He is obviously a massively capable man as researcher, head administrator, organizational navigator, and leader.
No he is not. He has obviously got you thoroughly deceived.

@roscoe I seriously think you need to objectively and dispassionately review these videos:


I've been following Dr. Chris Martenson since January of 2020 and have found him to be a man of integrity - a diligent, forthright, dispassionate and balanced investigator into the facts and circumstances surrounding progression of, and responses to, the pandemic. Nothing he has reported on over that course of time have I found to be untruthful, misleading or self-serving. On the few occasions on which he subsequently discovered he was in error on something he was always forthright and conscientious in admitting his error and in correcting same.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
No he is not. He has obviously got you thoroughly deceived.

@roscoe I seriously think you need to objectively and dispassionately review these videos:


I've been following Dr. Chris Martenson since January of 2020 and have found him to be a man of integrity - a diligent, forthright, dispassionate and balanced investigator into the facts and circumstances surrounding progression of, and responses to, the pandemic. Nothing he has reported on over that course of time have I found to be untruthful, misleading or self-serving. On the few occasions on which he subsequently discovered he was in error on something he was always forthright and conscientious in admitting his error and in correcting same.

Ok. But it will take a few days to track down and check the claims/evidence.
 

Fine Figure of a Man

Well-known member

roscoe

Well-known member

This is literally an editorial about how journalists responded to Fauci. It presents no actual direct evidence about Fauci at all.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
Appeal to the stone. How quaint.

Not at all. I make no statement about the logical absurdity of his argument.

That article was presented as evidence in favor of a particular assertion. Upon examination, it proved not to be evidence at all. The claim may (theoretically) be valid, but there hasn't been any evidence presented in support of it.

Until there is evidence, it will remain a simple (and weak) assertion, and logically equivalent to any other unsupported assertion.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
In one of the videos I linked for your review.

I saw that Martenson pointed to a Fauci email, in particular one where a besieged Fauci was kvetching to a friend about the assaults on his character, arguing that many assaults were anti-science.

This is the evidence? Because that is some weak tea.

If I had thousands of right-wing mouth-breathers coming after me because I contradicted their idol, Trump, I might vent, too. None of that supports any assertion that he deceptive, or making bad arguments in public policy.
 
Top