Changing ones opinion based on new evidence; it’s called science. Something you claim to know about but seem to completely ignore in these discussions.
However your statement about his stance in January 2020 is based on the radio interview where he was notable taken out of context, as the statement was heavily qualified that the situation could change and too much was unknown.
This is a lot more limited than you think, and what they choose to actually read is even more limited. It’s already well known that many of these senators already would prefer the conspiratorial line of thinking than the actual evidence from our agencies. Just look at the election. The Trump administration made a particular spectacle on choosing to distrust and try to politicise the intelligence community and many senators are a part of that.
And as such it deserves to be told by experts in virology, immunology, economics, and sociologists (at least the ones that study behaviour of people in crisis); it’s not a story that should be written by partisan politicians or eye doctors (unless some particular vision effects come out of all this, then they can write about that)
You’re the one that brought up the background, and continue to try to stand him up on it. That’s made it fair game in this discussion.
When the challenger has no evidence to back claims and no notable experience in a field, defer to those with the experience.
Regarding your attack on Fauci, based again on the radio interviews taken without context, you’re attacking someone without evidence who actually has the experience and background because they actually follow the scientific method unlike politicians. When the evidence pointed to masks working and social distancing working in practice, they spoke to it.
Referred patients for Opthalmic procedures sure, but this is virology and immunology. Opthalmic work has zero to do with the discussion at hand, and lends zero legitimate credence to the statements being made by Paul with regard to the pandemic.
And several sources claim that her fuel can’t melt steel beams and thus 9/11 was an inside job. That doesn’t mean those sources are legitimate (and completely belays the fact that you don’t have to reach the melting point of steel to make it fail due to heat)
The claims about the DIA analysis are just as unsupported as everything else. Right now all these conspiracy theories are an echo chamber of self-referencing opinion articles
This writer has already been called out by numerous researchers for blatantly misrepresenting their research, hasn’t been an NYT writer since 2012. His writeup further makes extraordinary claims, without evidence, as the basis for the discussion and non-chalantly talks about them to form the discussion the way he desires, such as the assertion that EcoHealth is itself doing gain of function research at WIV.
As for the organizer and drafter? He’s been studying natural coronaviruses since the original SARS1 outbreak. The NIH funding for EcoHealth has, by all visible measures past and present, been to collect and analyze natural samples from bats to track viral evolution and outbreaks within the local communities of those bats.
As for conflicts? That would be defined as monetary or personal incentives for the overall group of scientists that signed it, not just the person who organized it. An unarmed person can be shot in the street, and a petition for reform may be started by a family member but others can sign the cause on its own merits.
If they were being paid or provided an incentive by Daszak ,that would be a Conflict. The fact that EcoHealth asks scientists familiar with the matter if they endorse the statement is a different story.
No one said he isn’t; what’s been stated is that his medical background is not in virology nor immunology, so claiming he has any credentials related to the matter at hand are irrelevant since he is not skilled in this matter.
However his medical record does stand: no longer board certified in his specialty, attempted to certify himself and others with a bogus board, and the malpractice verdict.
And as Fauci said in January 2020 DHS could deny entry to those affected from China, or other measures to prevent spread before it becomes a risk for Americans. It’s almost like he’s constantly quoted out of context.
Except SARS-CoV2 is not the subject of her prior research. The study you’re referring to is a collaboration with researchers in North Carolina related to MERS and other coronaviruses. SARS-CoV2 was not a product of that research. It was not a virus that, by any accounts, had been sequenced by the time of the pandemic.
Stated without any evidence that funding for gain of function comes from us. Conspiracy theories are still conspiracy theories unless supporting evidence is put forward. Wild tabloid news and politicians not versed in the subject echoing each other in a chamber is not evidence.
We likely already would have seen it if there was one. The fact of the matter is this is still just conspiracy talk.
Again, that’s not what the prior GoF research was in 2015 which involves using a MERS virus. The conflation Paul makes is that a previous controversial experiment is related to the current outbreak when that’s simply not the case. Furthermore, that virus was created in a North Carolina facility and Fauci has already stated that the only GoF research that’s been supported has been domestic.
Bingo