[tomder55]

no one has any justification for making death threats against Dr. Fauci and his family.

obviously

and no one should presume that if someone is a critic , that someone approves of the threats against him.

Herr Doctor is a product of an arrogant bloated administrative state . He is just one of many .

[Athos]

obviously

and no one should presume that if someone is a critic , that someone approves of the threats against him.

Herr Doctor ................................

Calling him "Herr Doctor" contributes to the mindset of the wackos making death threats.

[tomder55]

knew this would happen. Regardless of facts, the source I provided, no matter how detailed, would be charged with being "left-wing". This is generally the position of the right-wing when facts contrary to their position are promulgated.

ditto when I use sourcing that you don't approve of . How often have you told me FOX-no good

Calling him "Herr Doctor" contributes to the mindset of the wackos making death threats.

nope that is just me having some fun on this site .

[jlisenbe]

How is the use of "Herr Doctor" more egregious than the constant drumbeat of referring to conservatives as "wackos"? Are we not back to the pot calling the kettle black?

[Athos]

ditto when I use sourcing that you don't approve of

Only when you source FOX

How often have you told me FOX-no good

I tell you that every chance I get. There's a reason for that. Fox is well-known for being a mouthpiece for Trump, promoting his lies.

I watch Fox often and see how badly they report the "news". Admittedly, Carlson, Ingraham and Hannity aren't really News people - they are opinionated columnists. No problem with that - just the misinformation they pass along. The slightest deviation from Trump adoration, and he disses them and goes to OAN, soon to be kaput unless they can find funding.

MSNBC, unfortunately, also morphed away from straight journalism to anti-Trump. However, and this is a huge however, they report the facts via audio and visual showing the idiocy and "Big Lie" of Trump. The in-your-face FACTS cannot be denied.

[tomder55]

Watch it or not . This is a good timeline by Brett Baier done in a 60 Minutes like format .


Bret Baier: New internal documents reveal COVID origins downplayed - YouTube

[Athos]

Watch it or not . This is a good timeline by Brett Baier done in a 60 Minutes like format .


Bret Baier: New internal documents reveal COVID origins downplayed - YouTube

Comments disabled.

[Athos]

Watch it or not . This is a good timeline by Brett Baier done in a 60 Minutes like format .


Bret Baier: New internal documents reveal COVID origins downplayed - YouTube

Tom, I had the time to listen to this report by Bret Baier. It's well done (he's a good reporter) but hardly merits a smoking gun that the virus originated in the Wuhan lab.

Fauci is seen as legitimately cooling any unproven theories that the Chinese deliberately created the virus, either as a weapon or by human error in the Wuhan lab.

The indications for the false scenario are founded on the shakiest of circumstances. One reason is that some scientists who initially favored the Wuhan lab origin changed their opinion and were later granted million-dollar research grants. Grants are commonplace, but the possibility of conspiracy theorists claiming that A led to B was a very real possibility even tho totally unproven. Fauci noted this and I agree with him.

Another reason was that the Chinese refused to let Western scientists into the lab at Wuhan and thoroughly cleaned the market where the virus was believed to have originated with bats. This was unfortunate but hardly proof of a lab origin theory.

To the end, the top scientist in the US, NIH Director Collins, maintained along with Fauci and the majority of Western scientists that the Covid originated in the Wuhan market, via animals - probably bats. This fact was included in Baeir's report.

To sum up, the YouTube link does not indicate a lab origin and clearly explains how and why the controversy continues. This may not have been Baeir's intention, but that's what the video shows.

[tomder55]

The indications for the false scenario are founded on the shakiest of circumstances. One reason is that some scientists who initially favored the Wuhan lab origin changed their opinion and were later granted million-dollar research grants. Grants are commonplace, but the possibility of conspiracy theorists claiming that A led to B was a very real possibility even tho totally unproven. Fauci noted this and I agree with him.

love how all the grant money went to the administrators that toed the line with the agreed narrative . That is how big science works in government . Consensus is the smart play when considering job security .

[Athos]

love how all the grant money went to the administrators that toed the line with the agreed narrative . That is how big science works in government . Consensus is the smart play when considering job security .

You just proved Fauci was right.

Your comment is EXACTLY what the scientists wanted to avoid. Not everybody thinks like you do, Tom. Only conspiracy theorists.

[tomder55]

Your comment is EXACTLY what the scientists wanted to avoid.

The opposite is true . They embrace the swamp and the job security that comes with the group think. Tell me ;how many research grants have been given to climate change skeptics ?

[Athos]

The opposite is true . They embrace the swamp and the job security that comes with the group think.

That's a pretty wild opinion. You need to back that up with details showing how, where, when, etc. "They" are doing these things you claim they are doing.

Tell me ;how many research grants have been given to climate change skeptics ?

Research grants are only given to legitimate scientists.

[tomder55]

look up 'funding bias'. No one argues that it is true when corporations fund studies . Why do you think the government is any different ? Do you really think Herr Doctor is an honest broker with no interests to protect ?

[Athos]

look up 'funding bias'. No one argues that it is true when corporations fund studies . Why do you think the government is any different ?

Corporations and government are two entirely different organizations. Corporations are known to be dedicated to their bottom line regardless of anything else, usually within legal limits but not always.

Government is far more objective, seeking answers to difficult problems. Does government screw up? Of course, like any human institution, it has its failures and miscreants. But it is far more open than corporations. Its grants tend to be to research universities.

Your broad brush paints way too widely. You are letting your biases determine your beliefs.

Do you really think Herr Doctor is an honest broker with no interests to protect ?

I absolutely believe Dr. Fauci is an honest broker with no axe to grind. He is a very smart guy (graduate of an all-scholarship Jesuit prep school in Manhattan - Regis High School) and whose record is unblemished.

Why the fringe right is so against Fauci is one of those right-wing mysteries I will never understand.

[tomder55]

Government is far more objective, seeking answers to difficult problems

thanks for the belly laugh .

[Athos]

thanks for the belly laugh .

Your hatred of government is selective. When it serves your purposes, you favor it.

Why do you selectiely hate government so badly?

[tomder55]

"That government is best which governs least" Henry David Thoreau

[Athos]

"That government is best which governs least" Henry David Thoreau

The context in which Thoreau said that was followed by him with "That government is best which governs not at all”. So Thoreau was actually an anarchist.

In any case, he was a dreamer who said a number of interesting things. But he was not a practical man. Practical men must live within a society of others, not on a pond navel-gazing.

[tomder55]

His though about government was very much a part of the founding

“It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” Madison Federalist 48

[Athos]

His though about government was very much a part of the founding

Part of the founding? His time was almost a century (75 years) AFTER the founding.