Rand vs. Fauci - 1/11

[jct74]

https://rumble.com/vsdsn1-dr.-rand-p...-handling.html

[CaptUSA]

Bring on the memes...

[CaptUSA]

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

[luctor-et-emergo]

Can someone please post a link to the emails Rand is referring to ?

[Occam's Banana]

Can someone please post a link to the emails Rand is referring to ?

EDIT: see post #24 below for a better source.

Images of some of them are available here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lockdowns.html

For example:

An email from NIH Director Francis Collins telling Anthony Fauci that there needed to be a 'devastating published take down' of the Great Barrington Declaration


Later in the day, Fauci sends along a piece from wired that Fauci said 'debunks this theory,' which relies heavily on ending lockdowns and herd immunity


Fauci sends him along another op-ed from The Nation Magazine trashing the Great Barrington Declaration

[RJB]

I hate it when people keep saying, "I am speaking."

BS. It's a discussion, not a Shakespearean monologue. When you say something that needs to be responded to and someone responds... That's a key part of communication.

[Sonny Tufts]

I hate it when people keep saying, "I am speaking."

BS. It's a discussion, not a Shakespearean monologue. When you say something that needs to be responded to and someone responds... That's a key part of communication.

Interrupting someone in the middle of a statement hinders communication. Paul isn't the only congressman who does it -- they all love to posture before the cameras by constantly interrupting witnesses whose positions they disagree with. If anything was a monologue it was Paul's opening statement that ran almost 2 minutes.

And before the Fauci haters and anti-vaxxers get their panties all in a wad, my point isn't to defend him. I just dislike all politicians regardless of party and hate it when they are more interested in their own voice than that of the witness.

[RJB]

Interrupting someone in the middle of a statement hinders communication. Paul isn't the only congressman who does it -- they all love to posture before the cameras by constantly interrupting witnesses whose positions they disagree with. If anything was a monologue it was Paul's opening statement that ran almost 2 minutes.

And before the Fauci haters and anti-vaxxers get their panties all in a wad, my point isn't to defend him. I just dislike all politicians regardless of party and hate it when they are more interested in their own voice than that of the witness.

I feel sorry for your husband.

[A Son of Liberty]

Quick aside, but I get REALLY annoyed by people who use "best" as an email salutation. It's smug and annoying.

[donnay]

Keep on interrupting Foulchee, Rand!!!

[jct74]

Rand has a longer video on his rumble account.

https://rumble.com/vsdsn1-dr.-rand-p...-handling.html

[jct74]

That's weird, I can embed the video in OP post but it's not working in previous post.

[jct74]

That's weird, I can embed the video in OP post but it's not working in previous post.

OK, I guess this is a known bug for Rumble embedding.

Apparently, a given Rumble video can only be embedded once in a thread (including quoted embeds).

Unless it's a per-user thing? Someone else should try to embed the same video and see what happens ...

[Occam's Banana]

That's weird, I can embed the video in OP post but it's not working in previous post.

For some reason, embedded Rumble videos will only appear once per page.

The first embed on a page will show up, but subsequent ones won't (even if they are quoted).

I don't know why.

EDIT: D'oh! jct74 beat me to it.

[CaptUSA]

Yells at Rand for personal attacks. Then pulls out pre-printed personal attacks on Rand.

Ooops.

[Brian4Liberty]

Interrupting someone in the middle of a statement hinders communication. Paul isn't the only congressman who does it -- they all love to posture before the cameras by constantly interrupting witnesses whose positions they disagree with. If anything was a monologue it was Paul's opening statement that ran almost 2 minutes.

And before the Fauci haters and anti-vaxxers get their panties all in a wad, my point isn't to defend him. I just dislike all politicians regardless of party and hate it when they are more interested in their own voice than that of the witness.

Sure, Rand comes off a little rude if that was the only context between the two. But this is ongoing, and we know exactly how Fauci will respond. He does it every time. He attacks Rand, says Rand is a liar, claims he is a victim, and then goes off on some political tangent. At this point it has gotten old.

[TheTexan]

I've got to hand it to Fauci, his denial game is on point. Just straight up deny everything no matter what.

"No shred of evidence of anything you say"..


except for the emails that hes reading from directly??

[Brian4Liberty]

I've got to hand it to Fauci, his denial game is on point. Just straight up deny everything no matter what.

"No shred of evidence of anything you say"..


except for the emails that hes reading from directly??

I've worked with people like Fauci. They are involved in the plotting of dishonest things, and then when caught, get up in front of everyone and self-righteously deny everything. I have never figured out what kind of psychology is going on there. Denial of the "bad things" they do, or simply a willingness to deny anything and everything. And BTW, I'm talking about Ivy league people, so maybe that is telling. Honesty is for peons.

[Anti Globalist]

Seeing Fauci get owned is cool and all, but he still isn't going to resign or get fired.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Sure, Rand comes off a little rude if that was the only context between the two. But this is ongoing, and we know exactly how Fauci will respond. He does it every time. He attacks Rand, says Rand is a liar, claims he is a victim, and then goes off on some political tangent. At this point it has gotten old.

I think the time is the Senators. If Paul wants to waste all his time on a Rant and leave no time for an answer, that is the privilege of a Senator.

[vita3]

I think he is going down. No#2 book in entire Nation, written by Democratic royalty

https://www.amazon.com/Real-Anthony-.../dp/1510766804

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1481006693085503490

[Occam's Banana]

Can someone please post a link to the emails Rand is referring to ?

Here is a link to a PDF file of the emails Rand is referencing: NIH-FOIA-56810-Complete-Response-Reduced-Size.pdf
(Note that the emails in the file are presented in reverse chronological order. so start from the bottom to follow them in proper sequence.)

Here's the aier.org article that Rand referenced in his leading tweet in the previous post.
(This is the webpage from which the link to the PDF file was acquired.)

Fauci, Emails, and Some Alleged Science
https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-e...leged-science/
Phillip W. Magness & James R. Harrigan (19 December 2021)

From October 2-4, 2020, the American Institute for Economic Research hosted a small conference for scientists to discuss the Covid-19 lockdowns. Just four days later, Dr. Francis Collins, the retiring Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), would call the three of the scientists in attendance “fringe epidemiologists,” in a directive he sent to Anthony Fauci and other senior staff of his agency. They were “fringe epidemiologists” because they had the temerity to ask whether the lockdowns of 2020 were effective. Those three, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford were simply doing what any good scientist would do: They were following the evidence.

They wrote the Great Barrington Declaration [GBD] as they parted company at AIER, posting it for all to see.

So why was Dr. Collins so intent on impugning these three scientists? It’s hard to know exactly, mostly because any scientist worth his salt should have been happy to see further research being done. That is, after all, how ignorance is replaced by knowledge. But Collins was clearly in no mood to replace his own possible ignorance with any kind of knowledge. He was pretty sure he knew all he had to know; and this is one of the most dangerous positions a scientist can take.

In an email obtained by AIER through a Freedom of Information Act request, Collins told Anthony Fauci, CCing Lawrence Tabak, Deputy Ethics Counselor at NIH, that he wanted “a quick and devastating published take down (sic)” of the Great Barrington Declaration’s premises.



One wonders why he would CC the Deputy Ethics Counselor on this, given the trouble these people seem to have with ethics, but here they were in October of 2020. Fauci wrote that same night to let Collins know that there was already a devastating take down of the Great Barrington Declaration…in that august scientific publication Wired.

“Francis,” Fauci wrote, “I am pasting in below a piece from Wired that debunks [the GBD].” There, science reporter Matt Reynolds told us there was no “scientific divide” over herd immunity, but that’s not the funny part. The funny part came when Reynolds declared quite confidently that we no longer had anything to worry about, as lockdowns were – as of October 2020 – a thing of the past.

“The problem [with the GBD] is that we aren’t in lockdown,” Reynolds explained. “[I]t’s hard to find people who are advocating for a return to the lockdown we saw in March. When the Great Barrington Declaration authors declare their opposition to lockdowns, they are quite literally arguing with the past.”

This Fauci-endorsed passage may be one of the worst takes of the entire pandemic. Less than a month later, lockdowns came roaring back with a vengeance.

Fauci wrote to Collins again the next day, this time referencing a breathless op-ed by Gregg Gonsalves, a public health professor at Yale, in The Nation. And here we arrive at yet another funny part. Gonsalves’ article was not exactly a critique of the Great Barrington Declaration. Instead, Gonsalves went after Martin Kulldorff, who in an interview with the leftist magazine Jacobin quite reasonably pointed out that the lockdowns hurt the poor more than most talking heads were willing to admit. Gonsalves’s grievance was that by interviewing Kulldorff, Jacobin had broken the lockdown “solidarity” of other far-left websites including the Nation and the Boston Review.

By October 10, the lines were well drawn, and Fauci thrust himself into the middle of the media hootenanny that was clearly emerging. Collins emailed again to boast about calling the three scientists “fringe” in the Washington Post, although he told Fauci that their ongoing campaign to take down the GBD “will not be appreciated in the W[hite] H[house].” The White House, Fauci retorted, was “too busy with other things to worry about” the GBD. There was an election to deal with, after all.

As the bedfellows became more strange, Gregg Gonsalves wrote directly to Collins, thanking him for his undiplomatic approach. For his part, Gonsalves became ever more hostile and profane, in his remarks on the GBD. “This f*****g Great Barrington Declaration is like a bad rash that won’t go away,” Gonsalves tweeted, shortly before reaching out to Collins. A day earlier, the Yale professor also began promoting unhinged conspiracy theories about the GBD and AIER that traced to the blog of a former 9/11 Truther movement activist.

Some of the emails between Collins and Fauci sent in response to AIER’s FOIA request have been redacted, but surrounding context makes it pretty clear that they were looking for a way to impugn the GBD further if it came up at the White House Covid Task Force meeting on October 16. That morning, Fauci emailed Deborah Birx, the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator. He pressed the need for her to oppose the GBD, and set the stage for an attack on Scott Atlas, who was the most friendly champion of the GBD on the Task Force.

Fauci, it turns out, had to miss the October 16 task force meeting, though he likely breathed a sigh of relief when Collins emailed him two days later. “Atlas did not take part in the [task force] meeting on Friday,” Collins wrote, “and the Great Barrington Declaration did not come up.” Another partially-redacted email hints that Fauci celebrated this outcome. Atlas’s opposition to the lockdown faction on the task force “is driving Deb [Birx] crazy,” he continued.

Fauci and Collins were not done, though, in their campaign to “take down” the GBD scientists.

Our story picks up again in earnest on November 2, when Fauci’s chief of staff Greg Folkers replied to an email that was not made public in pursuance to AIER’s FOIA request. It seems pretty clear, though, that Fauci asked Folkers for a list of sources that would allow him to argue effectively against the GBD. The email’s subject line references a previous correspondence from Fauci “as discussed,” noting that Folkers had “highlighted the three i found most useful” (sic).

Multiple sources, and particularly Scott Atlas’s recently-published account of his time on the task force, have noted that Fauci often relies on aides to curate lists of sources in advance of his many media appearances. He seldom reads the scientific literature on Covid-19 himself, and instead arrives at meetings with staff-prepared talking points. It appears that Folker’s email was an answer to one such request for talking points to attack the GBD scientists.

Note that Fauci frequently portrays himself as a staunch defender of science who stays above the political divide and remains outside of partisan debates. In light of that, you might expect that Folker’s response to Fauci’s request would yield a small sample of scientific analysis on the logic behind lockdowns, even if only in a format bullet pointed by his staff. But you’d be wrong. Folkers sent Fauci a list of seven political op-eds and articles opposing the GBD from popular media outlets.

So yeah. Science.

[osan]

I watched much of their exchange on Bibi's phone (she's back to work 1/19, BTW) and it was droll, but also a mite instructive in its confirmation of Fauci's basic personality type.

You have to give Fauci credit for brass. As Rand is waving indisputable quotesto from Fauci himself, the little wannabe brazenly denied all of it, claiming that Rand was distorting his words, as always.

The little worm knows how to stick to a narrative. I suppose that's one reason he was chosen.

It will be most interesting to see whether and how Fauci is tossed under the bus; OR, by what means will he be saved from accountability. These days the outcomes are impossible to predict as Theye have gone full-retard in nearly all instances, which in itself is perplexing, given the possible reasons why it may have come to be so.

Interesting times.

[Indy Vidual]

Nice closing in the video: Rand needs to run in 2024.

[osan]

Here is a link to a PDF file of the emails Rand is referencing: NIH-FOIA-56810-Complete-Response-Reduced-Size.pdf
(Note that the emails in the file are presented in reverse chronological order. so start from the bottom to follow them in proper sequence.)

Firstly, thanks for the link.

I find it interesting that Fauci, the great representative of "science" responds to the first email with an article from Wired. Wired has been a $#@!-rag since day one. I remember reading the first addition, some time in the early 90s as I vaguely recall, and noted at least two things. Firstly, the air of authority in their tone on every subject, as if they were Jesus Himself, tapdancing wildly across the Seven Seas to the strains of Cab Calloway. That immediately turned me off. What cemented my low opinion was the further aspect of tone that cried a little too strenuously about how "edgey" they all were. The notion of edgey causes my eyes to roll with such violence, it is a proof of miracles that they have not shot from their sockets like little cannon balls into low earth orbit to the scurrying alarm of NORAD. When people start talking about something being edgy, I immediately have to go into impulse-control mode to stop myself from bitch-slapping them into the next county. If you have to use that word, you don't know what it really means.

My little anti-Wired polemic aside, the quoted article seems a classic case of Wired-itis. Some stoopid full-of-himself foob writing in a tone that presumes wisdom the actual content and its structure betrays immediately, spews nonsense from beginning to end. The article is so flawed as to make the prospect of demolishing it the source of my next looming migraine. Seriously, I can't even get it up to go after that body of idiotic fallacy, and yet this is what Fauci offers his colleague as what, some reassurance? It makes no sense if one operates on the assumption that science is actually what's important in all this. But if you alter your assumptions to that of political ends, then suddenly sense shows up at the door for dinner.

Then the second response from Fauci cites an article by some dope named Gonsalves who declares the well established phenomenon of herd immunity as a "deadly delusion". The giveaway that the author may not possess an IQ comes in the second line where he refers to The Nation and The Jacobin as "progressive publications". 'Nuff said.

Fauci later refers to "sub-clinical cardiac MRI findings". The term is self-contradictory. How can a finding be "sub-clinical" when the very definition of "clinical" is that which is directly observed? For example, a sub-clinical dose of a drug produces no observable direct effect, precisely because it is sub-clinical. So if these "cardiac MRI findings" are indeed findings, the perforce cannot be sub-clinical precisely because they have been observed. What the hell? He refers to this in his disparaging of "Atlas" whom he predicts will find the notion of "sub-clinical cardiac MRI findings" as "nonsense", which as a matter of definitions is completely correct. This implies that Fauci believes in such stupidity, or is at least on the bandwagon to peddle them, presumably to the public.

Overall, I see in these mails a crap attitude that is decidedly not of a scientific bent that appears to reek of "we've decided and all dissent must be crushed".

Were I king, I would gather them all up, charge them, convict them, then imprison some of them for life at hard labor, and execute the rest, televised live to the world.

Bet they're glad I'm not king.

[jct74]

Wow, Rand's rumble video has over a thousand comments. I might have to make an account tomorrow so I can read some of them.

[vita3]

Man of Science pushed “Wired” hit pieces

Hahah

Neat learning some details of how medical propaganda is distributed

[tebowlives]

Since roughly the same number of deaths under Biden as there were under Trump, why is it said the variations are less lethal? Did Delta and Omicron pretty much replace the original?