J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Not for me they don’t.Gaslighting abounds on this forum
Trump's incompetence makes Andrew Cuomo's performance look better than it is
- Status
D
dvdjs
Guest
The please type up an example, so that we know, precisely, what you are talking about.
No kidding. Allegations with an unwillingness to provide stable support.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
I’ve posted the content in the articles,asked you repeatedly to look them up.You continue to contend you are not able to find anything.Odd since I found numerous links.My guess is you too have found them but are not willing to concede the validity of these statements .
Also I’ve have seen video clips as fR back as March where Fauci not all only said what I have asserted ,he then walks his comments back later on admitting he was wrong. I can’t help you anymore than I have.Seek and yes shall find
Also I’ve have seen video clips as fR back as March where Fauci not all only said what I have asserted ,he then walks his comments back later on admitting he was wrong. I can’t help you anymore than I have.Seek and yes shall find
Last edited:
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
It is interesting Fauci gets a pass but Trump, who relies on Fauci, doesn’t.
And DiBlasio doesn’t get blamed for telling healthy people to go out on March 11. No, it’s all Trump’s fault.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Dr. Fauci backed funding for controversial Wuhan lab studying origin of coronavirus
Dr. Anthony Fauci, a member of the coronavirus task force, had previously backed funding for a controversial lab in Wuhan, China, that has been studying the coronavirus in bats, reports said. Fauci…
nypost.com
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
It’s so predictable and tedious! Then these people wonder why Trump has to constantly fight back.Its been relentless.
I’m just relieved to see a lot of these schemes to oust him are coming to the fore!,
I’m just relieved to see a lot of these schemes to oust him are coming to the fore!,
Last edited:
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
A decade ago, during a controversy over gain-of-function research on bird-flu viruses, Dr. Fauci played an important role in promoting the work. He argued that the research was worth the risk it entailed because it enables scientists to make preparations, such as investigating possible anti-viral medications, that could be useful if and when a pandemic occurred.
The work in question was a type of gain-of-function research that involved taking wild viruses and passing them through live animals until they mutate into a form that could pose a pandemic threat. Scientists used it to take a virus that was poorly transmitted among humans and make it into one that was highly transmissible—a hallmark of a pandemic virus. This work was done by infecting a series of ferrets, allowing the virus to mutate until a ferret that hadn’t been deliberately infected contracted the disease.
The work entailed risks that worried even seasoned researchers. More than 200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem, they said, is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident.
Nevertheless, in 2014, under pressure from the Obama administration, the National of Institutes of Health instituted a moratorium on the work, suspending 21 studies.
Three years later, though—in December 2017—the NIH ended the moratorium and the second phase of the NIAID project, which included the gain-of-function research, began. The NIH established a framework for determining how the research would go forward: scientists have to get approval from a panel of experts, who would decide whether the risks were justified.
The reviews were indeed conducted—but in secret, for which the NIH has drawn criticism. In early 2019, after a reporter for Science magazine discovered that the NIH had approved two influenza research projects that used gain of function methods, scientists who oppose this kind of research excoriated the NIH in an editorial in the Washington Post .
“We have serious doubts about whether these experiments should be conducted at all,” wrote Tom Inglesby of Johns Hopkins University and Marc Lipsitch of Harvard. “[W]ith deliberations kept behind closed doors, none of us will have the opportunity to understand how the government arrived at these decisions or to judge the rigor and integrity of that process.”
www.newsweek.com
The work in question was a type of gain-of-function research that involved taking wild viruses and passing them through live animals until they mutate into a form that could pose a pandemic threat. Scientists used it to take a virus that was poorly transmitted among humans and make it into one that was highly transmissible—a hallmark of a pandemic virus. This work was done by infecting a series of ferrets, allowing the virus to mutate until a ferret that hadn’t been deliberately infected contracted the disease.
The work entailed risks that worried even seasoned researchers. More than 200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem, they said, is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident.
Nevertheless, in 2014, under pressure from the Obama administration, the National of Institutes of Health instituted a moratorium on the work, suspending 21 studies.
Three years later, though—in December 2017—the NIH ended the moratorium and the second phase of the NIAID project, which included the gain-of-function research, began. The NIH established a framework for determining how the research would go forward: scientists have to get approval from a panel of experts, who would decide whether the risks were justified.
The reviews were indeed conducted—but in secret, for which the NIH has drawn criticism. In early 2019, after a reporter for Science magazine discovered that the NIH had approved two influenza research projects that used gain of function methods, scientists who oppose this kind of research excoriated the NIH in an editorial in the Washington Post .
“We have serious doubts about whether these experiments should be conducted at all,” wrote Tom Inglesby of Johns Hopkins University and Marc Lipsitch of Harvard. “[W]ith deliberations kept behind closed doors, none of us will have the opportunity to understand how the government arrived at these decisions or to judge the rigor and integrity of that process.”
Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars
Biomedical research ultimately helps protect public health, Dr. Fauci argued in explaining his support for controversial research.
www.newsweek.com
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Oh yes. The Swamp is on high alert.It’s so predictable and tedious! Then these people wonder why Trump has to constantly fight back.Its been relentless.
I’m just relieved to see a lot of these schemes to oust him are coming to the fore!,
P
PetraG
Guest
Disagreeing with your assertion that you have provided enough evidence to prove a very serious charge is not “gaslighting.” It is only “gaslighting” when someone tries to get you to question your grasp of reality that you know by direct experience in order to manipulate you. It is not gaslighting when someone questions your research ability or when they pan the strength of your rhetorical argument. They could be wrong and they could be pigheaded and they could be biased, but they are not gaslighting you.Not for me they don’t.Gaslighting abounds on this forum
This premise is disproven by referring to the remarks made by Dr. Fauci that the White House has provided in the press briefing of Feb. 29. He was very careful NOT to say there were no concerns.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...rs-coronavirus-task-force-press-conference-2/
From Dr. Fauci remarks
…With regard to the particular area that’s involved now in Washington, the country as a whole — because we get asked that all the time — still remains at low risk. But when we say that, we want to underscore that this is an evolving situation. And in real time, we will keep you appraised of what is going on just the same way as though we are doing it today.
So how do you address this new challenge? There’s what we do from within and what we do from without. I hearken back to the original decision that was made by the President of making sure that we knew the scenario that was going on in China. We prevented travel from China to the United States. If we had not done that, we would have had many, many more cases right here that we would have to be dealing with.
So in that spirit, the approach is going to be as we address this challenge, which is going to evolve by the day and by the week, to do what was just mentioned: to try and keep our citizens from going to places that are active infection, and to prevent places where there are active infection to necessarily easily get here. That’s the getting it from without to within.
From within, we will very aggressively do the kind of public health measures that would hopefully contain this. But as we say this, we need to prepare for further challenges. And we will have them. You will hear about additional cases that will be coming on. You should not be surprised by that, but to realize that that is something that is anticipated when you get community spread.
So when you have cases throughout the world, the way we’re seeing now — South Korea, Italy, Iran, and places like that — the United States cannot be completely immune to that. The challenge is how we deal with it. And I can assure you all the resources that are necessary are going to be put into dealing with what we see evolving right now.
(cont)
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
(cont)
March 10:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...esident-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force/
So what we’re saying today is that although we keep coming in and saying, appropriately, that as a nation, the risk is relatively low, there are parts of the country right now that are having community spread in which the risk there is clearly a bit more than that. And you know the places: you know, Washington State, California, New York, and Florida.
But what I want to talk to you about today, just for a moment or two, is that we would like the country to realize that, as a nation, we can’t be doing the kinds of things we were doing a few months ago. That it doesn’t matter if you’re in a state that has no cases or one case, you have to start taking seriously what you can do now. That if and when the infections will come — and they will come. Sorry to say, sad to say they will. But when you’re dealing with an infectious disease — you know, we always have that metaphor that people talk about that Wayne Gretzky, you know, he doesn’t go where the puck is, he’s going where the puck is going to be. Where we want to be: where the infection is going to be, as well as where it is.
March 10:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...esident-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force/
So what we’re saying today is that although we keep coming in and saying, appropriately, that as a nation, the risk is relatively low, there are parts of the country right now that are having community spread in which the risk there is clearly a bit more than that. And you know the places: you know, Washington State, California, New York, and Florida.
But what I want to talk to you about today, just for a moment or two, is that we would like the country to realize that, as a nation, we can’t be doing the kinds of things we were doing a few months ago. That it doesn’t matter if you’re in a state that has no cases or one case, you have to start taking seriously what you can do now. That if and when the infections will come — and they will come. Sorry to say, sad to say they will. But when you’re dealing with an infectious disease — you know, we always have that metaphor that people talk about that Wayne Gretzky, you know, he doesn’t go where the puck is, he’s going where the puck is going to be. Where we want to be: where the infection is going to be, as well as where it is.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Tell, me, when the President himself makes false statements and baseless allegations against other people, do you call him on it?It’s so predictable and tedious! Then these people wonder why Trump has to constantly fight back.Its been relentless.
I’m just relieved to see a lot of these schemes to oust him are coming to the fore!,
If you don’t, please spare us the hand-wringing about how tormented he is and how unfairly he is treated. That kind of protest, my friend, is what gets really tedious.
As for this thread, I have no problem with New Yorkers voicing criticism of their governor or anybody voicing criticism of the “leader of the Free World,” as we so pretentiously continue to refer to our US President. (I do fail to see how failures by one would even in theory excuse failures by the other, but whatever.)
I think it would be more constructive, however, to criticize or debate measures being taken or being considered right now and performance that is either recent or being contemplated. This is a very serious problem, both in terms of public health and in terms of the economic survival of many people. Neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Cuomo nor anyone else can undo very many of yesterday’s mistakes. It is better to debate what can be done differently going forward than to debate decisions that cannot be reversed.
Or, as Mr. Belichick would say: “We’re on to Cincinnati…”
Last edited:
F
F_Marturana
Guest
Fauci has worked for the US government since the Reagan administration.
He’s with the National Institute of Health. It’s not a private research organization.
He’s with the National Institute of Health. It’s not a private research organization.
F
F_Marturana
Guest
Who is the swamp?
F
F_Marturana
Guest
Which people?
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
My issue is with those so invested in the anti anything Trump that they refuse to EVER concede an issue they hold that’s has been disproven.Why are all the tin foil theories imposed on those who support Trump.Dismissed in hand as such.Wheras everything that the left posts should be accepted as valid.
BTW Trump enjoys a 49% approval at this time ,in spite of this virus etc.
2 point above Obama at the same point in his tenure
BTW Trump enjoys a 49% approval at this time ,in spite of this virus etc.
2 point above Obama at the same point in his tenure
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
I agree that calling the extreme partisanship of our public debates–and yes, the reporting of our news–into question is a necessary first step if we are to have any hope of allowing our elected officials to reach their potential as leaders. Absolutely. As it is, extreme partisanship, packaged as “sane vs deluded” is what sells. We have to stop buying it.
I don’t know about you, but when I go to bridal showers, there is often a little keepsake book or something of that nature that asks the women of the family to write down their suggestions for a happy married life. My pat answer has become this: If you are wrong, admit you are wrong, even if you are not the most wrong. I have two reasons for this. One is that two people having an argument who are even capable of admitting they are partly in the wrong will invariably rationalize that they are not the party who is the most in the wrong. They each dig into their own defensive foxhole and insist that initiating armistice is the duty of the more guilty party. The result is that nobody will apologize even for wrongs they admit to themselves they have committed. There is another reason, though: I have found that the party that is the most in the wrong is also the most afraid of admitting their wrong. They feel the most vulnerable about admitting they’re wrong. When the party that has committed the lesser offense admits wrong and repents and asks for forgiveness without demanding a counter-apology in return, it starts a thaw in the relationship. It creates a safe place to admit fault and failure. It actually creates trust.
We don’t have a safe place in our political arena for admitting fault. It takes courage to admit fault. In a lot of cases, it takes a willingness to suffer a major political set-back and possibly the end of a political career. That is such a ridiculous situation. Even apart from our fallen nature, we are limited creatures. We are going to make mistakes. It is ludicrous to vilify elected officials when they make them. What is happening now, though? In order to protect our chosen elected officials, we prop up silly defenses and dismiss appropriate criticism. That can’t go on. This bedfellowing of falsehood has always existed in politics, but it is getting to the point that it is going to ruin us.
Last edited:
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
What interpretation is that up there?
DRB:Rom 1:29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
KJV:Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
I have not found link that support your specific claims. I have found many that support a different version of events. it would be simple to point to the links that you say that you have found - just the name o the source, the date, the title.
Thank you for the links.
Of course these do not support the claims of @Jeanne_S.
Neither the NIH not the NIAID are private research establishment’s let alone Fauci’s private research establishments. There are no “donations” involved. Instead there is grant funding through a proposal and peer review process. Such processes do not include micro-management from the Director of the Institute.
Perhaps there are some other links that have either identified something else entirely, or have FAKE NEWSED this into something that it isn’t.
It rather depends on what Fauci and Trump have said.
And whether or not Trump does in fact "depend: on Fauci.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
No, I read that was bad reporting (see below analysis)
Coronavirus Florida: County among three national hotspots? Federal numbers way off
* TO OUR READERS: The Palm Beach Post will continue to provide essential coverage of the coronavirus for free. You...
www.palmbeachpost.com
M
Maximus1
Guest
It is Trump’s fault on a national scale. Not a local isolated scale
- Status