Fauci E-mails and Honesty

[Sudsy]

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.

I don't know how one determines what is 'equally as vocal' but I do recall speaking out against some attitudes and comments that were being made on Trump that I thought did not represent Christian behaviour well.

I agree with your exhortation from Mathew 7. But we also should look at 1 Cor 5:11-13 which speaks directly to judging those within a church community. I view this as a form of church community. In this community non-Christians likely visit that would not visit a local church. This might be their main site to look into Christianity. They might come here from a bad experience in a church and are looking for something different.

None of us are perfect and if it is a matter of just pointing out the flaws in each other, than that will not be very profitable. But if we care to see Christianity displayed in a noticeable and caring sense, then we need to encourage one another toward being the best ambassadors of the Kingdom that we can be.

I don't mind and would like other believers to call me out where they think my posts are not being Christ like and I will consider what they are saying. We may not agree but I think it important how we go about our disagreements. We are part of one family regardless of the denominational group we affiliate with.

Perhaps a good thread for discussion would be when and how we go about judging others with the goal of presenting Christianity in it's best light to the world on an open form and anywhere.

Here are some conclusions on this from a Christian - https://www.christianpost.com/news/5-wa ... thers.html

[Bootstrap]

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.

The accusation was that Fauci lied. Nothing in the emails seems to show Fauci saying he believed what you claim and lied about it in public. Fauci has always been clear about the research he is relying on and what it says, I think he is on top of the literature and representing it accurately. I doubt very much that Fauci would have taken this website seriously:

https://c19hcq.com/

Despite the website's claims, it is not a metaanalysis, there's not even an article describing a methodology, it does not say who put it together, it resembles other websites that have popped up - the last few I looked at pointed to articles that disagree with the summaries given for them.

Scientists don't take this kind of thing seriously. I would be very surprised if Fauci thought this website proves anything. So using this website as some kind of proof that Fauci lied is silly. And I don't think Fauci discussed this website in his emails.

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.

Could you please point me to the specific statement by Fauci? For this thread, could you point me to falsehoods associated with his emails?

FWIW, researchers doing clinical research are getting death threats. That's not good. So is Fauci. The hostility people are directing at epidemiologists during a pandemic astonishes me.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lani ... 5/fulltext

Several authors of this work have suffered a violent campaign of cyber-harassment on social networks, receiving hundreds of insults, xenophobic messages, anonymous phone calls, and intimidation, including death threats. These actions were accompanied by the public sharing of contact details, including the postal address of authors, on Facebook groups with hundreds of thousands of members. In the same way Ektorp describes the response to Lacerda's trial, aggressive communication and an online campaign of misinformation against the meta-analysis were shared by certain medical and scientific professors, as well as French politicians, going beyond the framework of scientific debate and involving the political sphere.

This behaviour has a goal: to scare researchers and doctors and to silence them. However, silence would be the worst response to this type of behaviour, making societies vulnerable to populism and obscurantism. In a context of uncertainty and anxiety about the pandemic, and when expectations of clear and accessible medical information were immense, silence left medical communication to the champions of unfounded certainties and outrageous simplifications who were perfectly aware of new forms of communication via social networks and YouTube. Against these communicators, most doctors and researchers were unable to explain either the complexity of the medical process or that doubt, differences, and dialogues between peers are the guarantees of quality medicine. The credibility of medical speech emerges deeply shaken out of this, and the false hopes and disillusions generated by unfounded announcements have undermined confidence in medical research.

Citizens are entitled to expect transparent and honest medical information, and we believe this is crucial to address the contemporary challenge of medical communication aimed at the general public, in order to succeed in restoring confidence in medicine and science.

[Robert]

The accusation was that Fauci lied.

Dr Fauci said masks did not need to be worn in February because he valued medical staff more than regular people. He then said we needed to wear masks once masks were everywhere. So which time was truthful?

Dr Fauci said HCQ was dangerous and only antidotal evidence showed it working. There was research already in the Lancet about HCQ. This seems like a big distortion of the truth.

Dr. Fauci said two masks would be better. He later said it was just common sense, but not research was available. If not a lie, it is grossly inconsistent behavior.

Dr. Fauci said the NIH was not funding gain of function research when it was shown that they funded a group who funded gain of function research. It appears it was only done that way to give distance to the NIH, but the research would be able to continue. The emails reveal that Dr. Fauci knew much of this.

Dr. Fauci was working with facebook to remove any reports that suggested Covid-19 started in the Wuhan Lab. I find this quiet dishonest when he knew all along that it was a likelyhood it did.

Feel free to find where this is documented. I do not feel the need to prove it to you since the only source you seem to accept is NYT and factcheck.org. Both have been found to be unreliable.

[Josh]

"FWIW, researchers doing clinical research are getting death threats. That's not good. So is Fauci. The hostility people are directing at epidemiologists during a pandemic astonishes me."

Is there any actual proof of this? It seems anyone who wants to protect their political position simply claims they got some "threatening emails", as if that somehow makes people opposed to their views wrong.

Famous public people get crazies sending them crazy messages all the time. This does not make the epidemiologists somehow more factual. Do you choose your doctor based on the one who gets the most death threats?

[temporal1]

"FWIW, researchers doing clinical research are getting death threats. That's not good. So is Fauci. The hostility people are directing at epidemiologists during a pandemic astonishes me."

Is there any actual proof of this? It seems anyone who wants to protect their political position simply claims they got some "threatening emails", as if that somehow makes people opposed to their views wrong.

Famous public people get crazies sending them crazy messages all the time. This does not make the epidemiologists somehow more factual. Do you choose your doctor based on the one who gets the most death threats?

All of this, and, frequently, threats+negative behaviors are done by POSERS with intent to do damage to those they hate.
This happens so frequently, initial complaints must be investigated before given credibility.

Jussie Smollett is one example. There are many.

boot frequently calls for sober review of facts. EXCEPT when he doesn’t.

[Bootstrap]

Feel free to find where this is documented. I do not feel the need to prove it to you since the only source you seem to accept is NYT and factcheck.org. Both have been found to be unreliable.

I wonder why you feel the need to falsely portray me with that narrative.

You are saying this in direct response to a post where I quoted from the Lancet - ironically, you also invoke the Lancet, saying that there is a study that proves your point, so I assume you accept it as authoritative. If you read my post, you should have known that. If you read what I write in general, you know that I quote as many scientific sources as anyone here. While writing that post, I read two meta-analyses published in medical journals and browsed two more, but you couldn't have known that.

And I think you are doing the same thing to Fauci. You make up stories about what he thinks and how he goes about doing things - or echo stories you hear from others - and insist that you know his motives and the way he does things. You use one-line talking points without pointing to what he actually said in his own words.

Page 13 now. Have you identified anything specific in Fauci's emails that suggest he was lying? I rather suspect he is being targeted precisely because he spoke the truth. His emails don't seem to indicate that he is motivated by politics or trying to bring Trump down, the narratives that I see so often in the conspiracy mills. They seem to show a scientist coordinating research. They show a man who is not trying to politicize this pandemic.

I think Chris Wallace got this right.

While Fauci had cast doubt on the prospect of the virus originating from a lab, the emails do not show the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director rejecting the theory outright.

Wallace argued that political motivations are playing a mayor role in how people are reacting to the theory that COVID-19 originated from a lab in Wuhan, China, which has gained new attention.

"We outta take the politics out of this," Wallace said. "I think there certainly has been too much politics already."

"When Donald Trump — back when he was president — suggested that China may have played a role in it, that it wasn’t a naturally occurring virus, I think there was a knee-jerk reaction from some Democrats, from some people in the media, to say, 'Well, if Trump says this is a possibility, it can’t be a possibility,'" Wallace said.

"That was a mistake then, I think it's a mistake now to over-politicize it," he added.

[Bootstrap]

"FWIW, researchers doing clinical research are getting death threats. That's not good. So is Fauci. The hostility people are directing at epidemiologists during a pandemic astonishes me."

Is there any actual proof of this?

I don't want to get lost in this - I really would like to focus on what the emails actually reveal, but as far back as last April, the government decided a security detail was needed for Fauci because of this.

The government's top infectious disease doctor, Anthony Fauci, is now receiving security protection after becoming the face of the nation's coronavirus response — and a target of some supporters of President Donald Trump.

Health department leaders moved to give Fauci an armed security detail by last weekend after the 79-year-old immunologist received unspecified threats and uninvited attention, although the process took several days, said two individuals with knowledge of the decision.

If you want to spend some time digging, you can find plenty more. Science is under attack by political partisans because it gets in the way of their talking points.

Fauci and other scientists are showing a LOT of courage to speak truth when it is not popular. And I rather suspect that this is all happening because he accurately stated what the scientific literature said at times that politicians did not want to hear it. Fauci doesn't pass laws, he just coordinates research and reports on what it says as an advisor. He stays out of politics. As far as I can tell, nothing in the emails shows him targeting Trump or disrespecting him. Given the extent to which Trump has targeted Fauci, I am impressed by the way Fauci avoids hitting back.

[Soloist]

I want to be clear here... I have no opinion on what he may have said or done. My statement was entirely about the emails. I have over 9000 emails that were released and I've only really dug through 1/3d of them. Its a fair bit of work for something I really could care less about. Seems to me though that no one is actually reading the emails but relying on political statements from fact checkers or political pundits.

Feel free to keep arguing about what someone said about someone but don't assume your sources are superior unless you actually dig up the email yourself.

[Bootstrap]

I want to be clear here... I have no opinion on what he may have said or done. My statement was entirely about the emails. I have over 9000 emails that were released and I've only really dug through 1/3d of them. Its a fair bit of work for something I really could care less about. Seems to me though that no one is actually reading the emails but relying on political statements from fact checkers or political pundits.

Feel free to keep arguing about what someone said about someone but don't assume your sources are superior unless you actually dig up the email yourself.

On Page 13, I still don't see any evidence that the emails show Fauci is dishonest.

I think the burden of proof is on the accuser. Making strong, emotional accusations without evidence is not what Christians should be doing.

[Soloist]

On Page 13, I still don't see any evidence that the emails show Fauci is dishonest.

I think the burden of proof is on the accuser. Making strong, emotional accusations without evidence is not what Christians should be doing.

So... you repeatedly turn to these fact checkers on anything stated. So... you are doing the exact same thing you accuse them of doing. Go to the source if you desire to dispute claims rather then do what they do.