|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 27, 2021 7:28:12 GMT -6
The only mistake her employer made was hiring her batshit crazy ass to begin with. Hard to do if batshit crazy.
I would argue it's hard to do state work if you aren't batshit crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Aug 27, 2021 8:29:13 GMT -6
I would argue it's hard to do state work if you aren't batshit crazy. Word. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 27, 2021 9:14:40 GMT -6
Hard to do if batshit crazy.
I would argue it's hard to do state work if you aren't batshit crazy. That is the first sensible thing you have said in a while. Especially true if you live in a state where the legislature and governor seem intent on paralyzing government rather than making it work well.
Nobody says governors are perfect but in Indiana and other states the governor does not now have the power to make emergency decisions. In others governors and legislators are usurping decisions best made by their experts or best made locally. This is a political mess.
Public health issues have more need than most to be decided with professional advice, and where politics leads to poor decisions. Governors, Presidents and legislatures need to weigh professional advice more than politics.
This is very certainly not an area where a state legislature without much expertise can act better than the state or national executive branch where decades of experience and professional training can make better decisions without political pressure. Emergency response is sometimes required. A legislature is a poor place to put emergency decision making.
The question here is not whether vaccination should involve politics at all, or any individual decisions. It is how much is optimal and what political level is best.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 27, 2021 11:43:58 GMT -6
Florida now has some legal activity to sort out the issue. Apparently the Florida speaks to the matter of authority to make school decisions requiring a priority to put safety first.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Aug 27, 2021 16:52:51 GMT -6
I would argue it's hard to do state work if you aren't batshit crazy. That is the first sensible thing you have said in a while. I don't doubt it seems that way to you, because I have commonsense and you have no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by bsutrack on Sept 7, 2021 21:14:34 GMT -6
This week, thanks to materials released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by The Intercept, against the National Institutes of Health, we now know the Fauci-funded EcoHealth Alliance, a New York-based nonprofit headed by Peter Daszak, was absolutely engaged in gain-of-function research to make chimeric SARS-based coronaviruses, which they confirmed could infect human cells. www.documentcloud.org/documents/21055989-understanding-risk-bat-coronavirus-emergence-grant-noticewww.documentcloud.org/documents/21055988-risk-zoonotic-virus-hotspots-grant-noticeRutgers University Board of Governors Chemistry Professor Richard H. Ebright notes, "The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful." A more polite way of saying Fauci lied to Congress. "The trove of documents includes two previously unpublished grant proposals that were funded by the NIAID, as well as project updates relating to the EcoHealth Alliance’s research, which has been scrutinized amid increased interest in the origins of the pandemic." The materials show that the 2014 and 2019 NIH grants to EcoHealth with subcontracts to WIV funded gain-of-function research as defined in federal policies in effect in 2014-2017 and potential pandemic pathogen enhancement as defined in federal policies in effect in 2017-present. The materials confirm the grants supported the construction--in Wuhan--of novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses that combined a spike gene from one coronavirus with genetic information from another coronavirus, and confirmed the resulting viruses could infect human cells. The materials reveal that the resulting novel, laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses also could infect mice engineered to display human receptors on cells ("humanized mice"). The materials further reveal for the first time that one of the resulting novel, laboratory-generated SARS-related coronaviruses--one not been previously disclosed publicly--was more pathogenic to humanized mice than the starting virus from which it was constructed... ...and thus not only was reasonably anticipated to exhibit enhanced pathogenicity, but, indeed, was *demonstrated* to exhibit enhanced pathogenicity. The materials further reveal that the the grants also supported the construction--in Wuhan--of novel chimeric MERS-related coronaviruses that combined spike genes from one MERS-related coronavirus with genetic information from another MERS-related coronavirus. The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful. As the evidence continues to roll-in, how long can the Democrats protect their man Fauci? |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Sept 8, 2021 6:16:02 GMT -6
Somehow it'll be swept under the rug, and nothing will happen to Fauci.
But if it's true that he had a hand in developing this virus, he's as good as dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 8, 2021 8:44:06 GMT -6
Somehow it'll be swept under the rug, and nothing will happen to Fauci. But if it's true that he had a hand in developing this virus, he's as good as dead. We should wait and see what the response is. His "hand in developing the virus" is very unlikely to be all that significant. We'll see.
Before we blame this funding decision and his role in this research we ought to consider that this project was a small part of the research funding at Wuhan and the causation is remote. NOT funding this would not necessarily change the overall course of the research. We'll see, but all biological research has some risk, it's not clear how risky this one was right now. I doubt anyone can show this was a negligent decision. If anything it shows the mistake we made in investing more in public health research and not developing more facilities like Wuhan here in the US. It is responsible for much of the research we depend on to fight the virus now.
Biggest question for me is how does "nailing" Fauci help or hurt us in fighting the virus? Is it primarily a political response to discredit science?
Second is considering the many public statements made and his conduct of agency business over the decades how important was this decision in evaluating his current role? His efforts to coordinate research and communicate the medical facts and to develop and distribute vaccines on this virus under Trump and under Biden seems more important than any close call he made in 2015. A time when relations with China were on a different course. The volume of Fauci's good decisions made, many no doubt having risks, has to be looked at.
As to his beliefs when he testified, if we prosecute every false statement before a Congressional Committee we would have nobody answering questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Sept 8, 2021 9:55:30 GMT -6
Somehow it'll be swept under the rug, and nothing will happen to Fauci. But if it's true that he had a hand in developing this virus, he's as good as dead. We should wait and see what the response is. His "hand in developing the virus" is very unlikely to be all that significant. We'll see.
Before we blame this funding decision and his role in this research we ought to consider that this project was a small part of the research funding at Wuhan and the causation is remote. NOT funding this would not necessarily change the overall course of the research. We'll see, but all biological research has some risk, it's not clear how risky this one was right now. I doubt anyone can show this was a negligent decision. If anything it shows the mistake we made in investing more in public health research and not developing more facilities like Wuhan here in the US. It is responsible for much of the research we depend on to fight the virus now.
Biggest question for me is how does "nailing" Fauci help or hurt us in fighting the virus? Is it primarily a political response to discredit science?
Second is considering the many public statements made and his conduct of agency business over the decades how important was this decision in evaluating his current role? His efforts to coordinate research and communicate the medical facts and to develop and distribute vaccines on this virus under Trump and under Biden seems more important than any close call he made in 2015. A time when relations with China were on a different course. The volume of Fauci's good decisions made, many no doubt having risks, has to be looked at.
As to his beliefs when he testified, if we prosecute every false statement before a Congressional Committee we would have nobody answering questions.
If none of it matters why did he lie about it ? You are a moron, congratulations. This is like Bill and Monica all over again. First the left told it's a serious matter but none of the accusations were true, then they told us they are true but Bill didn't really lie about it, then they told us he lied but it was a private matter, then they told us "it's all about sex and it's disgusting", then they told us the lie "didn't rise to the level" of an impeachable offense. Here we go again. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 8, 2021 10:27:37 GMT -6
"Lie" implies knowing intent to deceive.
Why people make false statements, assuming this one is actually clearly false, varies. Often such statements are totally or relatively unimportant, or unintentional, very often subject to interpretation.
Let's wait for both sides before deciding this was false, material, and intentional. And/or forgivable.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Sept 8, 2021 12:16:20 GMT -6
"Lie" implies knowing intent to deceive. Why people make false statements, assuming this one is actually clearly false, varies. Often such statements are totally or relatively unimportant, or unintentional, very often subject to interpretation. Let's wait for both sides before deciding this was false, material, and intentional. And/or forgivable. Of course in Bill's case it was dependent on "what your definition of the word "is" is".................. What are the sides in the Fauci situation ? He isn't an elected official, or a politician in a leadership role. He is a career civilian civil servant who apparently lied to Congress, why would anyone cover for him ? |
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Sept 8, 2021 13:17:12 GMT -6
Somehow it'll be swept under the rug, and nothing will happen to Fauci. But if it's true that he had a hand in developing this virus, he's as good as dead. We should wait and see what the response is. His "hand in developing the virus" is very unlikely to be all that significant. We'll see.
Before we blame this funding decision and his role in this research we ought to consider that this project was a small part of the research funding at Wuhan and the causation is remote. NOT funding this would not necessarily change the overall course of the research. We'll see, but all biological research has some risk, it's not clear how risky this one was right now. I doubt anyone can show this was a negligent decision. If anything it shows the mistake we made in investing more in public health research and not developing more facilities like Wuhan here in the US. It is responsible for much of the research we depend on to fight the virus now.
Biggest question for me is how does "nailing" Fauci help or hurt us in fighting the virus? Is it primarily a political response to discredit science?
Second is considering the many public statements made and his conduct of agency business over the decades how important was this decision in evaluating his current role? His efforts to coordinate research and communicate the medical facts and to develop and distribute vaccines on this virus under Trump and under Biden seems more important than any close call he made in 2015. A time when relations with China were on a different course. The volume of Fauci's good decisions made, many no doubt having risks, has to be looked at.
As to his beliefs when he testified, if we prosecute every false statement before a Congressional Committee we would have nobody answering questions.
What good is "nailing" Fauci? Uh, how about something called "accountability"  And you STILL manage to blame Trump. At the very least there needs to be a full and exhaustive investigation about where this virus came from, how it was developed, who paid for its development, and who was responsible for it getting out. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 8, 2021 14:05:41 GMT -6
Oh, are we going to hold Trump accountable?
I misunderstood the GOP completely on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Sept 9, 2021 7:44:09 GMT -6
It appears that most of the "new revelations" have been known since May or June and the big argument is about how to interpret Fauci's statement. We may hear something from him about this more specific information that has surfaced, but I think I agree with lurkin' there may not be much response.
We discussed this back the early summer and this latest report really doesn't seem to change much. It still seems very doubtful there was criminal liability for the funding or the Congressional testimony. This is a big story in right oriented media, but I am not sure there will be much response. Fauci was defending his department and Senator Paul (and the current news reports) overstate the case that the actions of the Department were out of line. BOTH seem to me to have over broadly described the substance of the dispute.
The more important messaging for Fauci and his agency now should be vaccination and the status of the current health issues due the virus.
For a good summary of the facts See here. There was never doubt that the US collaborated with and supported creating the Wuhan research facility and funded research there. Most of this is history.
That this scientific research is legitimate and that it was a good idea to fund such research is not widely disputed in the scientific community who have looked at the research are not condemning the research design or purpose of the research, but do criticize the Wuhan facility for POSSIBLE safety violations. The really bad news is that such breaches of protocol are POSSIBLE in other facilities doing similar research on other infectious disease. Not enough funding gets directed to safety is something where most scientists will agree. I made this point originally, still seems true.
There is no reason to believe these grants were not properly vetted and approved by scientists in the routine of the department. Reading the grant and the resulting research since 2014 shows it to be completely above board and "good" science. That these grants led to the development of the Covid virus is speculative and unproven.
The accusation of a "lie" to Congress is entirely dependent on how you interpret the statements made. Looks like both sides have a point. Fauci and his staff certainly are right about the original nature of the grant. That original funding was not for gain of function. This research being referred to was judged by qualified staff, up and down the chain, the NIAID continued, adding, "as not being gain-of-function."
He was also correct to say that at the time of his testimony there was no current funding. Funding had been cut off.
In dispute and causing controversy about Fauci's statement is the status of research before the cut off date and it's purpose. The published research branched into gain of function as part of the study later. It is fair to say that study at that time was supported. But OTOH, Fauci and the NAID cut off funding for that research. Was their intent to pursue that research? Was the study approved too broad? Those are open questions. Was adequate safety required? On this point, probably not. Most science research has not been funded adequately and budgets cut for research, and labs in this and other fields have big issues with getting adequate funding. Not Fauci's call on that...
|
|
|
|
Post by sweep on Sept 9, 2021 14:36:38 GMT -6
It appears that most of the "new revelations" have been known since May or June ........................
Not if you watch CNN, MSNBC, or PBS. Congrats on writing 600 words of demented crap that have nothing to do with Fauci lying through his teeth. |
|
