Fauci E-mails and Honesty

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.

In light of the Fauci e-mails, do you trust him?

 
Total votes: 0

Bootstrap

Re: Fauci E-mails and Honesty

Post by Bootstrap »

Grace wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:39 pm
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:36 am When making serious accusations, it really is helpful to provide links to reliable information. As far as I can tell, Fauci is more truthful than his accusers.
On May 11th Fauci made a very adamant claim that the National Institutes of Health has never funded dangerous research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, suspected of being the source of the COVID-19 pandemic, when he was questioned by Republican Sen. Rand Paul.

His response to Sen. Paul’s questioning was, “Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund ‘gain of function’ research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology”.

But it turns out the NIH did fund the lab, and Fauci was fully aware of it. From 2014 to 2019, the NIH sent $3.4 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology through the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance.

https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backe ... ch-1500741

I would call that a lie on Fauci's part.
I think that depends a great deal on what you mean by gain-of-function, and it gets quite technical. I actually don't think Fauci was lying here, assuming that "gain-of-function" research was meant to refer to prohibited research under the 2014 guidelines, which is what Paul seemed to be saying.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-w ... agreement/
Fauci told Paul at the hearing: “Dr. Baric does not do gain-of-function research, and if it is, it’s according to the guidelines and it is being conducted in North Carolina, not in China.”

In a statement to us, Baric said: “Our work was approved by the NIH, was peer reviewed, and P3CO reviewed,” meaning reviewed under the HHS 2017 framework. “We followed all safety protocols, and our work was considered low risk because of the strain of coronaviruses being studied. It is because of our early work that the United States was in a position to quickly find the first successful treatment for SARS-CoV-2 and an effective COVID-19 vaccine.”

Kelsey Cooper, Paul’s communications director, told us “there is ample evidence that the NIH and the NIAID, under his direction, funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” citing Ebright’s statements. “In light of those facts, the question Dr. Paul asked was whether the government has fully investigated the origin of the disease, which it clearly has not. This research and the lab should be thoroughly investigated and opened to public scrutiny.”

Perlman told us that he thought Fauci’s response in the May 11 exchange was correct — that no money was given for gain-of-function research. But, he added, there’s a scientific discussion to be had on the benefits and risks of research making recombinant viruses, which involves rearranging or combining genetic material. The politicization of the issue, Perlman said, “doesn’t do anybody good.”
1 x
Bootstrap

Re: Fauci E-mails and Honesty

Post by Bootstrap »

Having responded to yet another side issue ... does anyone want to point to a clear lie in Fauci's emails, which this thread at least claims to be about?

Really, that's the litmus. What is the subject? What claim is being made? What facts would help us evaluate that claim? Are we going down that rational path, or are we doing something else? If so, what exactly ARE we doing and why?
0 x
RZehr

Re: Fauci E-mails and Honesty

Post by RZehr »

I have no idea what the emails we are talking about say. My opinion of his trustworthiness, or the erosion thereof, has to do with his actions and comments through the past year. Not on some emails that apparently became public.
0 x
violet
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:17 pm
Affiliation:

Re: Fauci E-mails and Honesty

Post by violet »

There are three thousand released emails from an FOIA.

If you really want proof, my suggestion is to make a cup of tea and start reading.

Form your own opinion.
1 x
Grace
Posts: 4692
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:26 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Fauci E-mails and Honesty

Post by Grace »

RZehr wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:07 pm I have no idea what the emails we are talking about say. My opinion of his trustworthiness, or the erosion thereof, has to do with his actions and comments through the past year. Not on some emails that apparently became public.
Thank you for clarifying that RZehr. Beings Fauci lied about the NIH funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, I don't think he is trustworthy.
3 x
Grace
Posts: 4692
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:26 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Fauci E-mails and Honesty

Post by Grace »

Joy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:30 pm But he sure sounded like a target to me.
He was. Almost daily.
Honestly, Fauci has more or less become a human Rorschach Test. People's opinion about him tell us more about THEM then it does about him.
And that comment goes both way. We sure saw plenty of opinions during the last few years, with a daily drumbeat of griping about the past administration. It told us more about the drum beaters, than the target of their griping.
0 x
Bootstrap

Re: Fauci E-mails and Honesty

Post by Bootstrap »

violet wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:26 pm There are three thousand released emails from an FOIA.

If you really want proof, my suggestion is to make a cup of tea and start reading.

Form your own opinion.
Is that how you formed your opinion? Or are there specific emails I should consider? Which ones? Please point me to something specific.
0 x
Bootstrap

Re: Fauci E-mails and Honesty

Post by Bootstrap »

Grace wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:29 pm And that comment goes both way. We sure saw plenty of opinions during the last few years, with a daily drumbeat of griping about the past administration. It told us more about the drum beaters, than the target of their griping.
I think a lot of people pretty much ignore the facts and focus on "does this say nice things about the people on my side" and "does this say appropriately nasty things about people on the other side". As a result, they don't even follow the facts in a thread, anything nasty about "their side" just feels like griping.

Does nobody want to discuss the facts behind the claims in this thread? Really, nobody?
Really, that's the litmus. What is the subject? What claim is being made? What facts would help us evaluate that claim? Are we going down that rational path, or are we doing something else? If so, what exactly ARE we doing and why?

There's been an awful lot of venom for precious few facts. That's frequent. And yes, that says a lot more about us than it says about the subject.
1 x
Ken
Posts: 21863
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Fauci E-mails and Honesty

Post by Ken »

Grace wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:27 pmThank you for clarifying that RZehr. Beings Fauci lied about the NIH funding of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, I don't think he is trustworthy.
That claim has been vigorously fact-checked by various sources since the claim was made by Senator Rand Paul. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... b-funding/


The dispute between Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci was about whether the NIH was funding "gain of function" research in Wuhan.

Bottom line? they found that Sen. Paul is the one lying about the facts, not Fauci:
Robert Kessler, a spokesman for the nongovernmental organization EcoHealth Alliance that NIH funded, said claims about funding gain-of-function research are based on a misunderstanding of the grant’s role in the research. He said EcoHealth provided WIV $133,000 a year, except for $66,000 in 2020 (when the grant was terminated by the Trump administration), for a total of about $600,000.

“The NIH has not funded gain-of-function work,” Kessler said in email exchanges. “EcoHealth Alliance was funded by the NIH to conduct study of coronavirus diversity in China. From that award, we subcontracted work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to help with sampling and lab capacity.” He said the citation in the paper was mainly the result of researchers’ desire to cite any possible research that contributed to the findings, with much of the funding coming from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. (Another funder listed was USAID’s Predict program, which helped collect animal viruses and also funded EcoHealth.)

“As described in the paper, all but two of the viruses cultured in the lab failed to even replicate,” he said. “None of them had been manipulated in order to increase their ability to spread, all the researchers did was insert S [spike] proteins in order to gauge their ability to infect human cells.”

Kessler added that “much of that work [described in the grant] wasn’t done because the grant was suspended. But GoF was never the goal here.” As he put it, “gain of function research is the specific process of altering human viruses in order to increase their ability (the titular gain of function) either to spread amongst populations, to infect people, or to cause more severe illness.”

In a lengthy statement to The Fact Checker, Baric — who signed the letter calling for a new investigation — also pushed back against Paul’s assertions at the hearing.

“The Baric laboratory has never investigated strategies to create super viruses,” he said. “Studies focused on understanding the cross-species transmission potential of bat coronaviruses like SHC014 have been reviewed by the NIH and by the UNC Institutional Biosafety Committee for potential of gain-of-function research and were deemed not to be gain of function.”

“We never introduced mutations into the SHC014 [horseshoe bat coronavirus] spike to enhance growth in human cells, though the work demonstrated that bat SARS-like viruses were intrinsically poised to emerge in the future,” he added. “These recombinant clones and viruses were never sent to China. Importantly, independent studies carried out by Italian scientists and others from around the world have confirmed that none of the bat SARS-like viruses studied at UNC were related to SARS-CoV-2, the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

We gave NIH six days to respond to questions and though we were promised a statement, none was received. That’s fishy. Fauci, speaking to the United Facts of America fact-checking festival on May 11, said Paul’s statement was “preposterous.” He said the research was “a very minor collaboration, as part of a subcontract of a grant, we had a collaboration with some Chinese scientists.”

Update, May 19: The National Institutes of Health issued a statement to The Fact Checker which in part said: “NIH has never approved any grant to support 'gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans. The research proposed in the EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. grant application sought to understand how bat coronaviruses evolve naturally in the environment to become transmissible to the human population.” When gain-of-function research was paused, “this grant was reviewed again and determined by experts to fall outside the scope of the funding pause.”

In a separate statement also issued May 19, NIH Director Francis S. Collins said: “NIH strongly supports the need for further investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) into the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.”

“Despite Dr. Fauci’s denials, there is ample evidence that the NIH and the NIAID, under his direction, funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” said Paul spokeswoman Kelsey Cooper. “In light of those facts, the question Dr. Paul asked was whether the government has fully investigated the origin of the disease, which it clearly has not. This research and the lab should be thoroughly investigated and opened to public scrutiny.”

The Pinocchio Test

There is some smoke here, but we do not yet perceive the fire claimed by Paul. To some extent, all money is fungible. But the EcoHealth funding was not related to the experiments, but the collection of samples. The NIH grant includes language that some say suggests gain-of-function research; NIH says that is a misinterpretation. Paul’s statements about Baric’s research also appear overblown. We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but decided on Two, because there still are enough questions about the work at the Wuhan lab to warrant further scrutiny, even if the NIH connection to possible gain-of-function research appears so far to be elusive.
1 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
violet
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:17 pm
Affiliation:

Re: Fauci E-mails and Honesty

Post by violet »

Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:47 pm
violet wrote: ↑Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:26 pm There are three thousand released emails from an FOIA.

If you really want proof, my suggestion is to make a cup of tea and start reading.

Form your own opinion.
Is that how you formed your opinion? Or are there specific emails I should consider? Which ones? Please point me to something specific.
Yes, this is how I am forming my opinion. The things that interest me may not interest you. I'm not here to form someone's opinion. It does make for some interesting reading.

Honestly, if you are Fauci fan most likely the emails won't change your mind.

If you are looking for something specific, you might find it. 8-)
0 x
Post Reply