Fauci E-mails and Honesty

[Franklin]

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.

I agree. Fauci is the high priest of the religion of Covidianism. Those who support Fauci are devout Covidians and their faith will not be shaken by mere facts.

[Bootstrap]

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.

I agree. Fauci is the high priest of the religion of Covidianism. Those who support Fauci are devout Covidians and their faith will not be shaken by mere facts.

Well, you could try providing facts and put us to the test. Instead, the strategy seems to be to avoid letting the conversation be about facts and insist on making it a personal fight.

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

The alternative, of course, is to stop turning people into targets, focus on facts, and explain the basis for your opinions. I gather you do not believe the death counts? Where do you believe I should turn for accurate scientific information about Covid-19?

[Valerie]

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.

I agree. Fauci is the high priest of the religion of Covidianism. Those who support Fauci are devout Covidians and their faith will not be shaken by mere facts.

Well, you could try providing facts and put us to the test. Instead, the strategy seems to be to avoid letting the conversation be about facts and insist on making it a personal fight.

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

The alternative, of course, is to stop turning people into targets, focus on facts, and explain the basis for your opinions. I gather you do not believe the death counts? Where do you believe I should turn for accurate scientific information about Covid-19?

How about to the doctors that were successful in treating patients with covid had zero deaths, kept yhem from hospitalization- they are called Americas Frontline doctors and had a different protocol than Fauci?

[Bootstrap]

The alternative, of course, is to stop turning people into targets, focus on facts, and explain the basis for your opinions. I gather you do not believe the death counts? Where do you believe I should turn for accurate scientific information about Covid-19?

How about to the doctors that were successful in treating patients with covid had zero deaths, kept yhem from hospitalization- they are called Americas Frontline doctors and had a different protocol than Fauci?

We've been here before. Can you show me anything in a medical or scientific publication that suggests that's true? I'm pretty sure they would stand up and take notice if clinical trials actually had results like that.

And that group really does look more like a campaign trick than like a medical organization:

America's Frontline Doctors is a group created by Tea Party Patriots Action during the election season. And it didn't last long.

AFD appears to be a new group supported and promoted by the conservative political organization Tea Party Patriots Action (TPPatriots), which shared a link to the “summit” on its website. AFD has little online presence and according to Whois, a database that tracks domains online, the americasfrontlinedoctors.com domain was created on July 16, 2020. Though the domain registry itself does not expire until 2021, the link led to a “website expired” page within 24 hours of the event airing. Breitbart reported the AFD website was “shut down” by hosting platform Squarespace. Snopes contacted the email address listed in an archived version of the website but received an email bounce-back that read, “the email account that you tried to reach does not exist.”

Can we agree that America's Frontline Doctors is not the place to turn to for reliable medical information? If not, what information can you give me to help me know they are trustworthy?

[Joy]

The alternative, of course, is to stop turning people into targets...

Does this include Presidents?

[Bootstrap]

The alternative, of course, is to stop turning people into targets...

Does this include Presidents?

I think it does. That's why I waited for investigations before reaching conclusions on a lot of things, and continue to refer to the results of those investigations and reports instead of pretending to be an expert myself. I really do think that I am consistent about looking for reliable sources of information and avoiding jumping to conclusions based on who I love or hate.

If you recall, I said "we'll see" a lot, for a very long time, with respect to President Trump.

[Joy]

But he sure sounded like a target to me.

[Ken]

The alternative, of course, is to stop turning people into targets...

Does this include Presidents?

That pretty much comes with the job. Whether your name is Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump, or Biden. Whether it is fair or not, that's how politics works. It is the candidates themselves (or their surrogates) who often sling the biggest arrows.

Most other people don't seek those sorts of public roles, outside of the occasional media or celebrity types who seek out that sort of attention.

[Bootstrap]

But he sure sounded like a target to me.

Do you mean that he was under investigation for some very serious things? That's true. Whether that's good or bad depends a lot on the level of evidence, and we often don't know until afterward. Nevertheless, people seem to know, instantly, who is guilty and who is not, purely on the basis of who they identify with.

We should be better than that.

We don't have to have strong opinions on every issue the world dangles in our face. But when we do choose to have opinions on these things, it's better to rely on facts rather than political identities and to realize that there are real limits to what we know.

By the way, here's the litmus test - given the topic, what are the main facts we would want to know? Are we discussing them or drawing attention away from them? Do these emails really say what some people claim about Fauci's honesty? Is there a possibility that they are lying to us, constructing a story for us to get outraged about for purposes of their own? Are we just as concerned about their honesty as we are about Fauci's?

[Grace]

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.