Most of us have moved on, but our intrepid coronavirus culture warriors, MN and his occasional sidekick Custard, are still fighting the good fight. Taking facts out of context, cherry-picking data, citing garbage in/garbage out studies and revising history.
The recent Fauci et. al scientific article is a nothingburger, except in the right-wing echo-chamber of course.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-mRNA-vaccine-fauci-387418337013.
For those of you who took the vaccines, raise your hand if you thought they would prevent all infections. After the first round of jabs, many of us continued to wear masks in crowded settings to minimize our risk. We also understood the virus would evolve over time. Also, raise your hand if you took the vaccines solely based on a news article or press release quoting Fauci. What MN and Custard seem to ignore is that many people also listened to the advice of their doctors, local infectious disease experts and state public health officals to get a sense of the vaccine's effectiveness.
It's pretty ugly watching MN and Custard lose their minds because Fauci changed his mind about the effectiveness of vaccines based on new evidence as variants, like Omicron, got more contagious. That’s the bedrock of scientific progress; unfortunately, MN and Custard see it as a “gotcha” moment. Take that LIBS!
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/11/health/us-coronavirus-tuesday/index.html
The good news is the vaccines have held up pretty well to protect against the more serious virus symptoms. It’s the same reason I take the flu vaccine every year. I recognize its limitations. Fauci and his co-authors also recognize that we need new approaches to make respiratory virus vaccines more effective. Make sense to me.
Here’s a good roundup of the kind of crap that MN, Custard and their brethren have been throwing against the wall over the past two years in a lame, ongoing attempt to denigrate Fauci.
https://www.science.org/content/article/almost-everything-tucker-carlson-said-about-anthony-fauci-week-was-misleading-or-false
#LivingInFauci’sHeadRentFree
Thank you for letting me know that I'm losing my mind. I wasn't aware.
Regarding Jon Cohen's Science.org column, I suppose we can take a look at some of his fact-checking.,
Fauci repeats that 60-70% immunity will be required to reach herd immunity. The fact check cites Michael Osterholm, who like Fauci, has said that masks are not effective. And the linked article also mentions that this prediction was different than other models, which Cohen doesn't mention. Cohen goes on to say that Fauci upped the percentage and that "nobody really knows for sure."
A great argument. Lol.
Fauci also said that he upped the percentage due to his concern that not enough people will get vaccinated. This isn't mentioned.
Cohen closes this fact check with "nor does he profit from their sales."
Congressional testimony included Fauci saying that public records would show if he had seen benefits. The congressman replied saying there are no public records of that information because it does not need to be reported.
The fact check about masks .......
Fauci "never publicly uttered these supposed quotes."
Lol. Someone contacted him about mask use on an upcoming business trip and Fauci replied saying masks don't work. True, Jon. The email was not shared by Fauci publicly. It was a private email.
The fact check about Fauci helping to create the virus saying that the engineered viruses were distant relatives ......
WIV contacted NIH to delete a database that was in a file other than GenBank. NIH complied. Only part of that database was recovered. There was a database that was never uploaded to GenBank because, as Daszak said, they were still waiting for the Chinese govt to review the data.
The engineered viruses may very well be distant relatives to the available files, but what about the unavailable files ?
Daszak: "Well I didn't do it. My colleagues did it."
Re the fact check that the work is not gain of function ....
Daszak himself emailed NIH/NIAID to thank them for approving his "gain of function" work.
And others "using a definition that required the original virus to be a known pathogen in humans, did not" is hardly a reason to dismiss the gain of function argument.
Then Cohen goes on to fact check Kristian Andersen's belief that some of the features look engineered but dismisses that by adding Andersen also said that further research is required.
This reach by Cohen is laughable, as if a scientist would simply say that something that looks a certain way wouldn't be followed with some scrutiny.
I could go on.
RecentWTF happened to the WTF h... by Reacher
A place to celebrate cele... by ILLove1997
Total Members: 142