Fauci E-mails and Honesty

[Valerie]

The concern now is that by now Wuhan has had time to destroy evidence that would prove that this originated in the lab and was a leak. We didn't originally know that Fauci was responsible for us funding the kind of experiments and research at Wuhan that so much of our money was doing and the potential risk and danger of that type of work in a communist country. I don't see how difficult it is to see the legitimate concern of all this and it will take time so boot wants immediate proof like he did during the fraudulent election claims (that are still under investigation) and because people can't give him that overnight he wants to dismiss it completely, These things take time and you just have to wait it out you can watch/read the same information everybody else is without making it up to us to determine the end result right away. I can't remember which scientist I read the article about that said the likelihood of it originating from a bat to a person, means that it is a legitimate consideration that it was man-made in wuhan's lab where they conduct that kind of work. Do you consider that to be a possibility? Since this effect of the entire world there is good reason to get to the bottom of this.

People have a right to ask a question why Dr fauci was against hcq, when so many other physicians successfully treated patients and kept them from hospitalizations with it. And other successful medications. His dismissal of these and the censorship of doctors that were successfully treating patients and keeping them from the hospital, gives a good reason to find out why, and a good cause for suspicion. Perhaps we should just in the thread and wait till the final information is released. But as been stated in different articles I've read Wuhan has had time to hide evidence and eliminate it so we may never know

Okay, so first... Where is the email that he said to cover up the lab leak? or that we need to push against it? The funding thing is semantics, you can't give money somewhere and expect the company to use it only for 1 specific thing... Particularly if it isn't a US company... Any email saying he was funding the specific research or that he wanted them to do gain of function experiments? Otherwise, maybe he was a little foolish to trust that they would maintain the "lines" but to outright accuse him of that... I personally always thought it was from a lab based on China's initial panic response.
Secondly, Where is the email saying to censor the hcq? I saw him advise one doctor that we were still waiting on the research so he couldn't advise it to be used yet...

There is an email where a scientist or a quack writes how it was made, that isn't some smoking gun and the work wasn't even the guy who wrote the email... Fauci doesn't even respond to it.

Not all of the information we have heard from Fauci is via email. There have been interviews as of late about all of this and so I've watched it not read it heard it not read it out of his mouth. It wasn't my way of email that he was against hcq that I'm aware of but this is a reason that a lot of doctors were upset with him early on because they were succeeding with hcq so for what reason was he against it?

I just googled thatchy against hydroxychloroquine, and several articles came up. As far back as March 20th when President Trump suggested it's validity Dr fauci was quick to deny it. Why were other doctors having success with it and suggesting it and he against it early on? An inexpensive over the counter drug and many countries. You need to learn about this and ask some serious questions why the one in control of how at least our country was handling this ended up denying the very drug that could have prevented thousands of deaths. Why were the doctors that were promoting this censored? Why did social media such as Facebook take down any suggestion that this could have originated in the lab in Wuhan why was it so quickly dismissed and people considered conspiracy theorists for asking the right questions? What was wrong with asking the questions that they were denied publicly asking?

[Grace]

I think this has wandered from the thread topic so if we are going to compare Anabaptist statements of faith against 'the original Anabaptist vision' (wherever that is spelled out), one can start a new thread and point me to that vision.

Personally, I appreciate Boot's insistence on trying to get to facts that have proof as we should be quite careful with slandering others. I just don't agree that some of these topics should be on a believer's radar.

I saw facts being presented on Dr. Fauci, which isn't slander. I can appreciate someone's opinion of what topic qualifies to be on a believer's radar. But that is YOUR opinion, and you have a right to share it. But chiding and denigrating people who do not share your opinion is against the Anabaptist vision as well.

This is not referring to Fauci or anyone else in the current U.S. administration, but if we had a government leader that started requiring their citizen to be chipped as proof of being vaccinated, would you tell Anabaptists to not follow the news on the issue and tell them it shouldn't be on their radar? If that same leader would foist a chip on people as a requirement to buy or sell, would you consider any discussion on that as slander and vitriol?

[Valerie]

The concern now is that by now Wuhan has had time to destroy evidence that would prove that this originated in the lab and was a leak. We didn't originally know that Fauci was responsible for us funding the kind of experiments and research at Wuhan that so much of our money was doing and the potential risk and danger of that type of work in a communist country. I don't see how difficult it is to see the legitimate concern of all this and it will take time so boot wants immediate proof like he did during the fraudulent election claims (that are still under investigation) and because people can't give him that overnight he wants to dismiss it completely, These things take time and you just have to wait it out you can watch/read the same information everybody else is without making it up to us to determine the end result right away. I can't remember which scientist I read the article about that said the likelihood of it originating from a bat to a person, means that it is a legitimate consideration that it was man-made in wuhan's lab where they conduct that kind of work. Do you consider that to be a possibility? Since this effect of the entire world there is good reason to get to the bottom of this.

People have a right to ask a question why Dr fauci was against hcq, when so many other physicians successfully treated patients and kept them from hospitalizations with it. And other successful medications. His dismissal of these and the censorship of doctors that were successfully treating patients and keeping them from the hospital, gives a good reason to find out why, and a good cause for suspicion. Perhaps we should just in the thread and wait till the final information is released. But as been stated in different articles I've read Wuhan has had time to hide evidence and eliminate it so we may never know

Okay, so first... Where is the email that he said to cover up the lab leak? or that we need to push against it? The funding thing is semantics, you can't give money somewhere and expect the company to use it only for 1 specific thing... Particularly if it isn't a US company... Any email saying he was funding the specific research or that he wanted them to do gain of function experiments? Otherwise, maybe he was a little foolish to trust that they would maintain the "lines" but to outright accuse him of that... I personally always thought it was from a lab based on China's initial panic response.
Secondly, Where is the email saying to censor the hcq? I saw him advise one doctor that we were still waiting on the research so he couldn't advise it to be used yet...

There is an email where a scientist or a quack writes how it was made, that isn't some smoking gun and the work wasn't even the guy who wrote the email... Fauci doesn't even respond to it.

Not all of the information we have heard from Fauci is via email. There have been interviews as of late about all of this and so I've watched it not read it heard it not read it out of his mouth. It wasn't my way of email that he was against hcq that I'm aware of but this is a reason that a lot of doctors were upset with him early on because they were succeeding with hcq so for what reason was he against it?

I just googled Fauci against hydroxychloroquine, and several articles came up. As far back as March 20th when President Trump suggested it's validity Dr fauci was quick to deny it. Why were other doctors having success with it and suggesting it and he against it early on? An inexpensive over the counter drug and many countries. You need to learn about this and ask some serious questions why the one in control of how at least our country was handling this ended up denying the very drug that could have prevented thousands of deaths. Why were the doctors that were promoting this censored? Why did social media such as Facebook take down any suggestion that this could have originated in the lab in Wuhan why was it so quickly dismissed and people considered conspiracy theorists for asking the right questions? What was wrong with asking the questions that they were denied publicly asking?

While editing, it "timed me out". I googled "Fauci" against hydroxychloroquine, and several articles came up. As far back as March 20th 2020. So yes this is apart from emails but it's all related as to why he wanted to dismiss that which is now under investigation

[Sudsy]

I think this has wandered from the thread topic so if we are going to compare Anabaptist statements of faith against 'the original Anabaptist vision' (wherever that is spelled out), one can start a new thread and point me to that vision.

Personally, I appreciate Boot's insistence on trying to get to facts that have proof as we should be quite careful with slandering others. I just don't agree that some of these topics should be on a believer's radar.

I saw facts being presented on Dr. Fauci, which isn't slander. I can appreciate someone's opinion of what topic qualifies to be on a believer's radar. But that is YOUR opinion, and you have a right to share it. But chiding and denigrating people who do not share your opinion is against the Anabaptist vision as well.

Grace, consider your first post and consider how it can be taken as slander - quote -

IMO Fauci is a sociaopath with no regards for human life. I wouldn’t put it past him to have welcomed the virus as a means of population control.

You can excuse it in some way perhaps but to me, this was not a very merciful opinion to share about anyone. And yes, this is my opinion according to how I understand we are to think about the sins of anyone.

This is not referring to Fauci or anyone else in the current U.S. administration, but if we had a government leader that started requiring their citizen to be chipped as proof of being vaccinated, would you tell Anabaptists to not follow the news on the issue and tell them it shouldn't be on their radar? If that same leader would foist a chip on people as a requirement to buy or sell, would you consider any discussion on that as slander and vitriol?

To your first question - I would encourage Anabaptists to keep their focus on our mission to represent the Kingdom way of life. IMO, Satan loves to see Kingdom citizens off into topics that do nothing to further the Kingdom of God. And he likely is getting quite a chuckle over how our concerns are more about people's temporal existence than their eternal one. Especially when he sees us fighting amongst ourselves over who has the facts about an issue. If I was asked to be 'chipped' as proof of being vaccinated, I would have no problem with that as my conviction is that I should obey the government unless what they require of me is to deny my belief in the Gospel. If others feel convicted to take a stand regarding not forsaking their assembly, then they should be ready to pay the penalty with disobeying the law.

To your second question - If what the government decided would stop me from buying or selling and this had to do with following my faith in Jesus, then it would be a good discussion to encourage one another to put our faith first as we tried to live under those restrictions, if it was even possible. We can have discussions on anything, although I believe the original intent of this forum was geared to how we deal with things on a spiritual level as the instructions on some of these forums are worded. But how we discuss these things is important as this forum is open to unbelievers. Do they see us discussing in a way that reflects the fruit of the Spirit or not much different than the unregenerate world ? And I'm certainly no perfect example to follow but I will continue to remind us all that we are to be different and ambassadors of another country. We must rely on the Holy Spirit to give us control over our fleshly responses to things in this world.

I don't expect everyone to live by my understandings and convictions but I think we should challenge each other regarding our focus, our way of
discussing sinners, how we treat one another as believers and other things that scriptures talk about.

[Grace]

I don't expect everyone to live by my understandings and convictions but I think we should challenge each other regarding our focus, our way of
discussing sinners, how we treat one another as believers and other things that scriptures talk about.

I won't take the time to go back and look, but were you equally as vocal, when in the past few years, we had an almost daily drumbeat of Trump bashing?

Let us look to the log in our own eye before worrying about the splinter in other's eye.

[Bootstrap]

Well, no. Just look at he past few posts. Facts were shared. Care to speak to them or will you just wait a while then claim no one is posting facts? Kind of like, you seem to be doing what you are saying others are doing.

Nope. And you just proved my point by selectively editing my post to hide what I had said, implying I had said something quite different.

I don't see where I selectively edited your post.

I keep repeating the same thing. This thread starts by making accusations without providing evidence. I am still asking for evidence of those claims. Is that really so hard to understand?

When asked for evidence of the accusations, nobody is wiling to take responsibility for providing that evidence. Instead, pivot to other accusations, change the subject, etc. A lot of these other accusations have already been thoroughly debunked in other threads where the same kind of thing happened. And if I turn to those accusations, you and I both know what happens: it pivots to other claims, and as long as you can keep changing the subject you can keep hating on Fauci without ever having to be pinned down to actual evidence.

So this is what I am doing: I am asking people to list specific claims and the evidence for those claims, sticking with the topic of the thread. In this thread, that's the Fauci emails. That's why I keep mentioning the page number and that I'm still waiting. Of course, I can't force anyone, but I can keep pointing out how many pages in we are without evidence for these claims.

Oh, but there's some good news. Soloist posted something that resulted in a brief exchange on the topic! I'll respond to that.

[Bootstrap]

Okay, so first... Where is the email that he said to cover up the lab leak? or that we need to push against it? The funding thing is semantics, you can't give money somewhere and expect the company to use it only for 1 specific thing... Particularly if it isn't a US company... Any email saying he was funding the specific research or that he wanted them to do gain of function experiments? Otherwise, maybe he was a little foolish to trust that they would maintain the "lines" but to outright accuse him of that... I personally always thought it was from a lab based on China's initial panic response.
Secondly, Where is the email saying to censor the hcq? I saw him advise one doctor that we were still waiting on the research so he couldn't advise it to be used yet...

There is an email where a scientist or a quack writes how it was made, that isn't some smoking gun and the work wasn't even the guy who wrote the email... Fauci doesn't even respond to it.

Thanks, Soloist. On page 12, we finally start getting to the subject of the thread and what evidence exists.

Here's a Factcheck article worth looking at:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/06/scich ... ci-emails/

Links to the original emails and claims that have been made. Links to the original sources. For instance:

Ingraham then says: “Now, mysteriously, Andersen’s article debunking the lab leak theory and also signed by the other colleagues of course was a 180-degree turn from what he told Fauci in January,” saying that Fauci “influenced it.”

But Andersen said there was nothing mysterious about the change of his earlier opinion, nor was it a “massive cover-up” as one Australian journalist alleged on Twitter. “It’s just science. Boring, I know, but it’s quite a helpful thing to have in times of uncertainty,” Andersen said.

We don’t know what Fauci may have said to Andersen and his colleagues on that Feb. 1 phone call. Among the emails obtained by BuzzFeed News, there are several about the call, some of which appear to be notes and observations sent afterward, but they are heavily redacted.

Andersen posted a detailed answer to two questions raised by his email to Fauci: What about the virus looked engineered to him? And what made him change his mind? The June 4 Twitter post includes details about certain features of the virus that “did not seem to have an obvious immediate evolutionary precursor,” he wrote. But, after his email to Fauci, more data was released, including the full genome for a bat coronavirus that is 96% similar to SARS-CoV-2.

Andersen said the researchers conducted “much more extensive investigations,” including looking at the literature from the Wuhan lab and research techniques used there, and performing analyses of SARS-CoV-2. He said much was done in “a matter of days” leading the researchers to “relatively quickly reject our preliminary hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 might have been engineered.”

“This is a textbook example of the scientific method where a preliminary hypothesis is rejected in favor of a competing hypothesis as more data become available and analyses are completed,” he said.

Here's the Nature Medicine article:

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

Conclusions

In the midst of the global COVID-19 public-health emergency, it is reasonable to wonder why the origins of the pandemic matter. Detailed understanding of how an animal virus jumped species boundaries to infect humans so productively will help in the prevention of future zoonotic events. For example, if SARS-CoV-2 pre-adapted in another animal species, then there is the risk of future re-emergence events. In contrast, if the adaptive process occurred in humans, then even if repeated zoonotic transfers occur, they are unlikely to take off without the same series of mutations. In addition, identifying the closest viral relatives of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in animals will greatly assist studies of viral function. Indeed, the availability of the RaTG13 bat sequence helped reveal key RBD mutations and the polybasic cleavage site.

The genomic features described here may explain in part the infectiousness and transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in humans. 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. The identification of a potential intermediate host of SARS-CoV-2, as well as sequencing of the virus from very early cases, would similarly be highly informative. Irrespective of the exact mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 originated via natural selection, the ongoing surveillance of pneumonia in humans and other animals is clearly of utmost importance.

Note that Ingraham also mischaracterized the article. They didn't say it was impossible for the virus to come from a lab, they said there is no evidence that it did, outlining the kinds of evidence they would look for. They do say what they see so far is consistent with natural origins.

[Bootstrap]

While editing, it "timed me out". I googled "Fauci" against hydroxychloroquine, and several articles came up. As far back as March 20th 2020. So yes this is apart from emails but it's all related as to why he wanted to dismiss that which is now under investigation

I think Factcheck addresses the claims and the evidence for these claims pretty well.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/06/scich ... ci-emails/

A story on the Gateway Pundit, shared on Facebook more than 8,500 times, declared: “SMOKING GUN: FAUCI LIED, MILLIONS DIED — Fauci Was Informed of Hydroxychloroquine Success in Early 2020 But Lied to Public Instead Despite the Science.”

The story points to a Feb. 29, 2020, email sent to former Vice President Mike Pence and copied to Fauci, in which two doctors suggest the drug could be effective against COVID-19 and suggest the U.S. government conduct or fund studies. Fauci forwarded the email to a deputy director who works in microbiology and infectious diseases, writing: “Please take a look and respond to them. Thanks.”

In another February 2020 email, a pharmacologist at the Food and Drug Administration inquired with Fauci on whether there was “any indication/data to substantiate this claim from China (attached publication) that chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine can decrease COVID-19 infections and lung disease?”

“There are no data in this brief report and so I have no way of evaluating their claim,” Fauci wrote back, noting that there were similar claims going around. “I would love to see their data.”

The pharmacologist then made reference to “data from 2005 showing inhibition of SARS infection.” SARS is the disease caused by SARS-CoV-1, a different coronavirus that caused an outbreak in 2003. We’ve explained before that a 2005 study found the drug prevented spread of that virus in cell culture — which is different than proving it works in humans, against a different virus.

Fauci still forwarded the email thread to an adviser at NIAID, writing, “Let us discuss.”

It’s worth noting that the government did fund a study evaluating the drug’s efficacy for patients hospitalized with the disease. That and a string of other studies, including other randomized controlled trials — the gold standard in science — did not find it helped hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The Food and Drug Administration also issued an emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in March 2020 — allowing adult and some adolescent patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to obtain the drugs from the Strategic National Stockpile “when clinical trials are not available, or participation is not feasible.” But it revoked that authorization in June, finding that it was “unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA,” and that the “known and potential benefits” of the drugs “no longer outweigh” the risks.

In short, the emails cited as a “SMOKING GUN” about hydroxychloroquine simply show that some people wrote to Fauci expressing the possibility that the drug could be effective against COVID-19. His responses show he engaged with the emails, at least to some degree. They don’t prove that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment against COVID-19 — or that Fauci hid it from the public.

Fauci’s brief comments on the subject in the emails aren’t inconsistent with what he was saying publicly last year.

In March 2020, he said at a press briefing that reports of hydroxychloroquine’s promise in relation to COVID-19 were “anecdotal evidence” and that analyses to determine if it was safe and effective were underway. In early April 2020, Fauci was also asked on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” whether it was effective; he said that “the data are really just at best suggestive. There have been cases that show there may be an effect — and there are others to show there’s no effect.”

One Facebook post took the false hydroxychloroquine narrative even further, suggesting Fauci secretly endorsed the drug for those close to him while telling the public it didn’t work.

“According to new emails to and from Fauci, not only did Fauci admit that MASKS DON’T WORK, he also said that Hyroxychloriquine is effective and he recommended it to his own family and close friends,” the post, shared nearly 500 times before it was deleted, claimed.

Included in the post was a screenshot of one page of a lengthy email in which the author stated as much. But in reality that email was sent to Fauci — not from him, as the post falsely said.

[Josh]

Fact-check is not “evidence”. I could cut and paste from the Epoch Times too. Use unbiased reliable sources.

[Grace]

I keep repeating the same thing. This thread starts by making accusations without providing evidence. I am still asking for evidence of those claims. Is that really so hard to understand?

When asked for evidence of the accusations, nobody is wiling to take responsibility for providing that evidence. Instead, pivot to other accusations, change the subject, etc. A lot of these other accusations have already been thoroughly debunked in other threads where the same kind of thing happened. And if I turn to those accusations, you and I both know what happens: it pivots to other claims, and as long as you can keep changing the subject you can keep hating on Fauci without ever having to be pinned down to actual evidence.

So this is what I am doing: I am asking people to list specific claims and the evidence for those claims, sticking with the topic of the thread. In this thread, that's the Fauci emails. That's why I keep mentioning the page number and that I'm still waiting. Of course, I can't force anyone, but I can keep pointing out how many pages in we are without evidence for these claims.

Oh, but there's some good news. Soloist posted something that resulted in a brief exchange on the topic! I'll respond to that.

Why is it that you claim people are not providing evidence for the accusations about Dr. Fauci, when evidence was provided. Back on page 10, I wrote about the Studies that have shown that hydroxychloroquine plus AZM improved survival of COVID patients.

https://c19hcq.com/

Dr. Fauci told major news media outlets that hydroxychloroquine was actually dangerous when used against Covid 19. Hydroxychloroquine had been used safely for 65 years in millions of patients. This statement made headlines throughout the main stream news media and it was a lie purported by Dr. Fauci.