And that is swallowing the Republican hook, that was not a diary as in a private one, it was notes that he did in a government computer, that they are implying that it was a personal diary show already that the f’ng worse Republicans are counting on the general ignorance of what those notes were. Back then government officials had to input notes of their beliefs or experiences at the time, and as new research and information unfolded, those notes became outdated.
Here one has to notice that it will be almost impossible to find the real malfeasance that the current administration is doing as the notes from people that are supposed to be our servants are many times not recorded on government servers.
So yeah, I don’t think Fauci was perfect, but the Republican ones badgering Fauci and the science (that still saved many back then), are following the worse angels of their nature.
Or it means that I saw a headline that said, “Paul releases Fauci diary”, I tracked down the primary source and ignored all secondary, and just read the fucking thing.
I’ve spent years being told that I was getting everything against Trump from Liberals because I was reading the raw primary source reports created by Trump’s own appointees and DOJ as they arrested his personal friends and took them to court. Not a single liberal source between my eyes and my understanding of the situation.
Do you really want to get in on the same business as MAGA of magically knowing what other people know and how they came about that information?
Not really, the law encourages that he took notes as he saw it as important for the record, Public records laws guarantee public access to government-held documents and meetings. As noted before, for the current Republicans, “rules for thee, but not for me”.
Just saying, any news source nowadays can be very ignorant of the right context. Knowing it then, why should we assume that the Republicans in congress are right on their accusations?
Look, you can be pro-science while saying that official policy for nuclear detonation experiments is to work in remote, unpopulated locations. And you can be pro-science while saying that a group of scientists appear to have neglected policy by using questionable legalistic interpretation.
There may be a political world where you have to support science, without question, even if it means that you have to defend Jeffrey Epstein’s funding of research into genetically modifying the human genuine to improve submissiveness in females or whatever other insane quandary.
I’d rather assume that we’re not in that world on this forum, at least. We can admit that X scientist made a bad choice without having to fear that someone will misinterpret that to mean that we need to go back to living in caves and smearing polio into our pores just to make sure that we’re doing the good traditional living
You’re kidding, right? Pandemic is a cooperative game, where everyone wins or everyone loses. Trump is only going to play games where he can come out on top, screw everyone else.
As I said, I don’t think Fauci was perfect, but the thing here is that there is very little to report that the scientist made a bad choice, it was a third medical group that did not follow procedure, and chances are, as it happens many times in manufactured controversies from the right, it is more likely that scientists involved with Fauci did notice first about the improper handling.
One has to notice how in the past discussions about the science of global warming, the deniers jumped at any contradictions… contradictions that were found and dealt with by the proper climate scientists early on.. but never mind that, it is better for the ignorants in power to push for the idea that all scientists are evil…
As the evidence shows, of course is reviewable, but it is like having the climate change deniers passing their judgements on climate science.
From the OP’s link:
In his posts on X, Paul highlights a few select excerpts from Fauci’s notes. For instance, he points to an entry on Jan. 26, 2020, not quite two months before the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic, where Fauci writes, “the first infection was in early December and was not connected to the market. … Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier.”
Paul notes in his post, "The wet market was already off the table in [Fauci’s] own private notes."
But in that same journal entry, Fauci adds, “Having said that, somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans.”
Not quite a week later, in an entry penned on Feb. 1, 2020, Fauci listed the dozen researchers who participated in a conference call debating the origins of COVID-19. Specifically, they were talking about the plausibility that a key part of the SARS-CoV-2 genome could have evolved naturally.
According to his notes, only two of the scientists voiced support for a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. “The rest felt that deliberate insertion was possible,” he wrote, referring to the hypothesis that the virus was engineered in a lab.
In response to that passage, Paul wrote on X, “This was never a 50/50 room,” suggesting that early scientific consensus considered a lab leak possible.
But Goodrum says that this meeting took place very early on, when scientists did not have as much data as they would later. The virologist points out that science is iterative and takes time to play out. What some of those scientists believed at the start [gave way to a different consensus](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/science/covid-lab-leak-fauci-kristian-andersen.html) as more evidence emerged.
“We make the best conclusions we have with the data we have at the time, but then you’re going to keep working,” she says. "And then you’re going to ultimately revise the original conclusions that you made. You will change your mind. That’s absolutely fundamental to the way science is done. And it’s something that Fauci wasn’t really given any latitude to do."
.
Yeah, what is going on now is a Kangaroo court in congress led by Rand Paul with assistance from the Quack in chief from MAHA.
And that has what to do with the price of tea in China?
If you said that the AI is lying about the P3CO process and how it was applied, what does that have to do with Rand Paul and Republicans as reported third hand by NPR?
The report you linked at shows that the American Scientists and orgs dealt with it.
Nope, it can hallucinate as it is prone many times.
NPR actually asked scientist Felicia Goodrum, a virologist at Dartmouth College who spoke to NPR from the American Society for Virology meeting in Minneapolis. But that was to comment on the very, very misleading point Rand Paul was going on about. Point being that under that light, the accusations from the right are mostly Poppycock as the not personal diary from Fauci showed that Rand Paul does not know how timelines and scence works.
And? Again, what does that have to do with anything?
I’ve now asked like 6 times whether you’d be willing to accept a review - to confirm or deny - the AI’s accusation, per as much documented record as can be established and, to the extent possible, placed within the most reasonable context.
To my read, both Fauci and the Democratic Congress members argue that the Republican report was never reviewed under the standard of the P3CO and that “alternate” definitions of gain of function were used. And, further, that EcoHealth, to their mind, shouldn’t be investigated nor questioned as part of the pandemic review.
Personally, I’d say that if everyone, including Fauci himself, the Democrats, and the AI all agree that the P3CO is the right measure then it’s unreasonable to say that it’s off limits to review it against that measure. We’re completely in our rights to pull together evidence and do the work that neither political party was willing to do.
And likewise, I’m not seeing the argument that you can’t review NIAID’s handling of EcoHealth unless it’s proven to have been the cause of the pandemic. Any solid review should try to identify as much stuff of concern as possible in current methodologies and improve them. There’s no real world limit in private enterprise nor government that says that if you’re investigating an entity - for example, a restaurant to see if they’re stealing electricity from the grid that you can’t write them up for sourcing their water from a river downstream of the local sewage treatment facility, which you spotted whole researching the other thing. You can and should try to improve every part of the process as you can clearly spot.
Do you have some argument against either of those principles?
I didn’t tune in to the kangaroo court that the Senate tried to put on, but in retrospect, I’m curious about what some of the questions were that were asked by the most concerned Republicans.
What a shitshow, with worldwide consequences, Republicans have shat out onto this nation.
Missing the point, if that article was used by the AI, it was missing that Fauci was not fined or mentioned as being irresponsible. one could then ask why it was mentioned since no one has made the argument that we can’t review it, I did take a look and it is clear that some don’t like that it does not show what they think it did, it was geared towards finding what the funded group did wrong, not the cause of the pandemic… in other words:
“Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!”
Rand Paul’s base and MAGA do likely coincide on the topic of Fauci being an Avatar of Evil. (Because both bases pride themselves on their lack of education and on resentment and dislike of the genuinely-educated.)
In this Get Fauci endeavor Rand Paul finds himself in Donald’s good graces. But of course there are many topics on which Paul opposes Donald. So this is one of their Venn Diagram overlaps.
This deserves highlighting.
Paul has beclowned himself with this project. But as you say, the larger picture is that millions of Americans are so very easy to manipulate.
