Fauci E-mails and Honesty

[Josh]

Simply put, as far as I can tell, I think Fauci has been deceptive. You don’t.

You and I will have to agree to disagree.

[Robert]

When do you think it is appropriate for a Christian to make unfounded accusations that result in death threats? Do you think we should replace our legal system with kangaroo courts run by social media?

Should a Christian want to know if he is bearing false witness against his neighbor? Should a Christian want to know if he is engaging in slander other fruits of the flesh?

I do not know if these comments are directed towards me. I laid out the issues I have with Dr Fauci and his willingness to distort and lie that has nothing to do with emails, but documented statements he made then changed them later, not because new data came up, but because other things changed.

I see no reason to drag up the exact videos or statements since I have already presented them and they seem to be ignored. Go back months and months and I have said the same thing. I do not trust the man.

[Robert]

Take from it what you will.

https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/10/anth ... uckerberg/

The Top Six Revelations From Anthony Fauci’s Emails

[Bootstrap]

When do you think it is appropriate for a Christian to make unfounded accusations that result in death threats? Do you think we should replace our legal system with kangaroo courts run by social media?

Should a Christian want to know if he is bearing false witness against his neighbor? Should a Christian want to know if he is engaging in slander other fruits of the flesh?

I do not know if these comments are directed towards me.

Aimed at the thread in general. And I see your Daily Caller post with the six main takeways - thanks.

In the text you quoted, I am expanding on the same point I made here:

Suppose every time someone starts a "cancel" thread, we all asked basic questions:

1. What accusation is being made about whom?
2. What evidence is given for the claim?
3. How solid is that evidence? Should we believe the claim?
4. What does this mean for us as Christians living where and when we do?

I think we would have very different discussions if we did that. Again, page 10 at this point. Perhaps we could start now?

Asking the basic questions about truth should not be seen as offensive. When people ask for the facts behind these claims, that's the way to take truth seriously. In a thread that's all about honesty, that's how we can be honest.

I see no reason to drag up the exact videos or statements since I have already presented them and they seem to be ignored.

Oh, I think I have responded at least a few times on some of these. I don't come to the same conclusions you do, but in this thread, let's stick with the claims that are the topic that it started with. I think constantly changing the subject makes it really hard to look at one thing at a time and see if it is true.

[Bootstrap]

Take from it what you will.

https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/10/anth ... uckerberg/

The Top Six Revelations From Anthony Fauci’s Emails

Thanks - this is a useful list with links to the emails. Let's start with this:

Infectious Disease Expert Told Fauci In January 2020 That COVID-19 Looked Potentially Engineered

Kristian Andersen, an infectious disease expert at Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, emailed Fauci on Jan. 31, 2020 to alert him to the possibility that COVID-19 was engineered in a lab. “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen said.

He changed his tune just days later, referring to theories that COVID-19 was engineered as “crackpot theories.”

Fauci acknowledged receipt of the initial email, thanking him and saying they would “talk soon.” Andersen later published a paper in Nature attempting to dispel the lab-leak theory, which was cited by Fauci in the months after.

None of this seems to show Fauci being dishonest or doing anything wrong. Or Andersen either. Andersen said it was important to "look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered," and presumably did. After doing so, Andersen decided the lab origin theories were crackpot. There's no indication that Fauci was actively involved in any of that.

The Nature article is more reserved, though, you can read it here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9#Sec8

Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.

More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses. It would also be helpful to obtain more genetic and functional data about SARS-CoV-2, including animal studies.

So the article implies that Andersen did exactly what he proposed to do, look at the sequences and come to a conclusion. He says that this probably originated naturally, but you can't rule out the possibility of a lab leak. In addition to the Nature Medicine article, Andersen also put up a web page that identifies what he saw as crackpot theories at the time.

https://andersen-lab.com/secrets/data/s ... 2-origins/

The page contains quite a bit of supplementary material that goes beyond the Nature Medicine article, most of it is not about crackpot theories. But it has this one section that seems to identify what he was talking about in the emails:

Refuting the "Yan Report"

A report from Dr. Li-Meng Yan and colleagues came out in September 2020 proposing that SARS-CoV-2 had been created in the lab. This report is one of many examples of conspiracy theories circulating about lab-based scenarios for the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. While such scenarios should not be dismissed without inquiry and deserve careful scientific inquiry (as we did in our "Proximal" paper), this particular report is entirely unsupported, non-scientific, and appear to have been created to support baseless conspiracy theories.

Twitter thread outlining the issues with the Yan Report.

Some media sources seem to be claiming that there is solid proof that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, Fauci knew it and covered it up, and the emails prove it. As far as I can tell, none of this is true. I'll start a thread on Wuhan and Covid, pointing to more information, but here I would like to focus on Fauci. Is there anything in this exchange that shows Fauci doing anything dishonest or wrong? If so, what?

[Robert]

Is there anything in this exchange that shows Fauci doing anything dishonest or wrong?

Timeline is important. He had this info at the same time he was publicly speaking and suggesting the Wuhan Lab connection was not valid.

Again, I stopped trusting Dr. Fauci long before his emails were out.

[KrisKramer]

Is there anything in this exchange that shows Fauci doing anything dishonest or wrong?

Timeline is important. He had this info at the same time he was publicly speaking and suggesting the Wuhan Lab connection was not valid.

Again, I stopped trusting Dr. Fauci long before his emails were out.

But it seems that most sources agree at this point that it probably comes from nature (animal to human) and not the lab.

[Szdfan]

Is there anything in this exchange that shows Fauci doing anything dishonest or wrong?

Timeline is important. He had this info at the same time he was publicly speaking and suggesting the Wuhan Lab connection was not valid.

Again, I stopped trusting Dr. Fauci long before his emails were out.

But it seems that most sources agree at this point that it probably comes from nature (animal to human) and not the lab.

Exactly. There are lots of caveats from scientists who are encouraging an investigation. There's a huge difference between, "we can't rule out a lab leak and need to investigate it" and "we've confirmed a lab leak." That nuance is being ignored.

[Bootstrap]

Is there anything in this exchange that shows Fauci doing anything dishonest or wrong?

Timeline is important. He had this info at the same time he was publicly speaking and suggesting the Wuhan Lab connection was not valid.

According to his emails and articles published at the time, the information he had told him:

• The lab hypothesis had been explored and was considered unlikely
• All of the sequences could have occurred naturally in bats
• The lab hypothesis could not be ruled out, it was still possible, but unlikely.

At the time of these emails, Fauci had a strong focus on Chinese wet markets as a possible source of Covid-19, and called for China to shut them down.

This still seems to be the state of play. During this time, a lot of political and conspiracy channels have suggested there is conclusive proof of the Wuhan lab-leak theory. I have heard Fauci speak against that. Has he said things that go against things I listed above? If so, when and where?

Again, I stopped trusting Dr. Fauci long before his emails were out.

Sure. But have you noticed that you repeat that as a mantra, repeatedly, instead of going into the facts in detail? And have you noticed that on really complex scientific issues like this one, as soon as a talking point is launched, the positions are drawn on who each side is supposed to love and hate and people seem really, really confident that they know what is going on but have no grasp at all of the facts? They know how to make us feel, the media does that on all sides, especially online and broadcast media. They know that making us feel, polarizing us, and fixing the discussion around personality politics works for them

We have to put that aside and slowly look at facts with an open mind if we don't want that. So what did Fauci say on this topic that you think was dishonest? Links, please?

[Sudsy]

I really doubt that getting people to provide their sources and facts will happen here. I do agree that what we should be careful on what we conclude about anyone as there are usually many unknowns and judging others in a negative way is something I believe dangerous for Christians to get involved in.

There are likely going to be more future threads where folks go by a 'gut feeling' and with limited or no facts they can provide. I agree with you we should try to keep from doing this but on the other hand, as is obvious, some will not or cannot provide support for their feelings or decisions.

This seems to only lead to more strife to attempt to require the facts to backup statements made. So, when honesty is worked on, strife occurs. Some folks don't think their opinions need facts, they just go by what they feel. I know I do at times but I shouldn't when it comes to a person's character. Scripture says I will be judged on the way I judge others. Pretty serious then on how we go about our judging.