Rand Paul: Fauci intimidates scientists from contradicting him because 'he controls all the funding'

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Charles Creitz | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/LwA7BvD.jpg

Scientists with differing opinions about COVID-19 origins than Dr. Anthony Fauci keep it to themselves because because the top disease expert controls much of their funding, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, told "Fox News Primetime" Tuesday night.

Paul subjected Fauci to stiff questioning during a Senate hearing chaired by Democrat Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota earlier in the day, with Fauci quibbling over Paul's definition of gain-of-function research, which the lawmaker said came from a document sourced by another epidemiological expert.

The senator went on to urge Fauci, the head of the National Institutes of Allergy & Infectious Disease, to reconsider prior testimony denying NIAID or NIH's particular funding endeavors at the Wuhan lab; where many believe COVID-19 originated – citing federal perjury laws.

Paul reacted further to Fauci's behavior and doubled down on his assertion that the 80-year-old Brooklyn, N.Y. native is not letting on as much as he should be on the topic of gain-of-function research funding.

He said he read aloud the NIH's definition of gain-of-function research, as well as a scholarly paper from a cellular biology expert working at Rutgers University in New Jersey, which described Wuhan lab official Dr. Shi Zhengli's work as the textbook definition of such experimentation.

"All Dr. Fauci could do was sputter and call me liar – but he never at any point in time addressed any of the facts that we laid out that the money he was giving to Wuhan was indeed for gain of function."

Paul chalked up the fact he is one of few prominent medical experts – as a doctor himself – speaking out and contradicting Fauci to the assertion that many others in medicine rely on NIAID funding – which Fauci has the ultimate say on.

The senator noted Fauci has worked at the Bethesda, Md.-based NIH since 1968. He was appointed the head of NIAID by President Reagan in 1984.

Host Brian Kilmeade went on to note that Johns Hopkins physician Dr. Marty Makary told him on the "Brian Kilmeade Show" earlier in the day that the NIH distributed $40 billion in research grants in 2020 – but less than one-half-of-one-percent went to COVID-related endeavors.

Makary said Fauci should be ashamed at that statistic, and Kilmeade asked Paul why there is not more outrage on the whole among the medical community:

"He has been [at NIH] for 40 years; probably 39 years too long. But he controls all the funding," Paul warned.

"So, people are deathly afraid of him. Researchers will not speak out. Why have there not been other scientists?"

Paul said that he receives letters from scientists that routinely contradict Fauci's prescriptions and public statements, but that they all offer the same regret: that they are afraid to speak out against what the health care bureaucrat says.

"They are very distrustful of what he is saying. They don't think he is making sense and reading the science accurately," said Paul.

"They're afraid to speak out because many of them are university scientists and they depend on NIH funds: To cross him means it's last money you will ever get."

Paul said Fauci has a "significant conflict of interest" in the Wuhan matter because he was "at the top of the food chain" of funding distribution and now claims none of it went to the dangerous gain-of-function research.

"All he is saying is oh, well, the research now doesn't meet our definition," he said. "He is dancing around the truth. Why? Because if this disease came from the lab and they were funding gain of function, guess what? There is at the very least moral culpability he has for the beginning of the pandemic."

Paul added that in 2012, Fauci made statements about the potential for a pandemic leaking from a lab, and that if such a situation occurred the research would be worth the risk.

In the document Fauci prepared that year, he defended controversial gain-of-function research, saying that the "benefits" gained from the science "outweigh the risk" of an accidental pandemic breaking out.

"It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky," the paper read.

During the hearing Tuesday, Fauci responded to Paul's assertions saying he denies and "resents" them.

[Griffin]

Everyone now knows Fauci is just a lying opportunistic fraud. In the old days he would have been tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

[lost in melb.]

:gheyfight:

[Muddy]

Fauci destroyed Paul yesterday..

[lost in melb.]

The person who is always talking over the other person's speaking time is always the one with something to hide.

[FBD]

Fauci destroyed Paul yesterday..

Tu quoque that lacks any and all substance whatsoever is completely okay to win an argument.

yeah I think I'll just go again, otherwise I'll just be too tempted to call out idioicy again

Fauci is a poor liar, and a halfassed Bill Nye tier "scientist" and deserves a rope based solution as is traditional for absolute traitors

I mean really
Paul: presents evidence that GoF is being done in wuhan, quotes the actual scientists, offers to give the grant #, and given that fauci testified that they do not fund gof, would he like to retract his statement
Fauci: I've never lied, there's no evidence that we are responsible for the deaths of millions!
Paul: I'm not saying that, I'm saying everything you did fits the textbook definition of GoF research
Fauci: but (((our))) scientists (that did the work on the shit lmao) have said this isnt GoF! (that's plenty!) you're a liar!

destroyed :lmao:

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8611309.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200c/Rob-Ford-Smoking-Crack.jpg

[Pony]

yeah I think I'll just go again, otherwise I'll just be too tempted to call out idioicy again



That's probably best, otherwise we'll be too tempted to ban you again.

[Godfather]

Fauci destroyed Paul yesterday..

Agreed, it's baffling to me that politicians are trying to grill scientists on 'gain of function' without understanding the very basis of the term.

[lost in melb.]

Agreed, it's baffling to me that politicians are trying to grill scientists on 'gain of function' without understanding the very basis of the term.

Welcome to the world of alternative facts. Unfortunately, his targeted audience will lap it up

It's the same with anti-vac material. The people propagating it and the people reading it actually have no idea what they are taking about. They just parrot a bunch of terms they read on the internet.

[DemonGeminiX]

Guys, I hate to break the news to you, but Rand Paul was a fairly accomplished doctor before he was a Senator. He knows precisely what gain of function is. He knows far more about medical research than just about anyone on Capitol Hill.

[lost in melb.]

Qualifications don't matter if you're a liar.


"As described in the paper....None of them [viruses]had been manipulated in order to increase their ability to spread, all the researchers did was insert S [spike] proteins in order to gauge their ability to infect human cells.”




Guys, I hate to break the news to you, but Rand Paul was a fairly accomplished doctor before he was a Senator. He knows precisely what gain of function is. He knows far more about medical research than just about anyone on Capitol Hill.

If so it makes it even worse. I thought Rand Paul made some decent comments about the effective transgender athletics on a females, however he completely spoiled his questions via his bigoted use of definitions. He's just another lying politician.

[lost in melb.]

Myself, I think there needs to be more oversight into this kind of lab work. Not just in China. There is plenty of gain of function research happening around the world as we speak.

[DemonGeminiX]

Rand Paul is not a liar. I did not get my opinion from this article, I actually watched the exchange live as it happened. Paul read to Fauci Fauci's own definition of gain of function research as it pertained to the NIH indirectly funding research at the Wuhan lab in China, and then Fauci stated, "No, that's not what 'gain of function' means" when that's precisely what Fauci said gain of function meant in previous testimony. Fauci is a weasel. He is caught red-handed and he is using the leftist playbook by calling people names and accusing them of lying when he's not winning. Fauci did not destroy Rand Paul like the article wants you to believe.

[lost in melb.]

Rand Paul is not a liar. I did not get my opinion from this article, I actually watched the exchange live as it happened. Paul read to Fauci Fauci's own definition of gain of function research as it pertained to the NIH indirectly funding research at the Wuhan lab in China, and then Fauci stated, "No, that's not what 'gain of function' means" when that's precisely what Fauci said gain of function meant in previous testimony. Fauci is a weasel. He is caught red-handed and he is using the leftist playbook by calling people names and accusing them of lying when he's not winning. Fauci did not destroy Rand Paul like the article wants you to believe.

We're different. I don't get my opinion from videos unless less the videos showing the actual event. The video is about people talking about something, which is open to interpretation and ego and bluster, manipulations etc. For example, the fact that Rand Paul is aggressive and rude interrupting Fauci for political theatre, which makes it look like he's in the right, whereas he's just an aggressive cunt.

I go to the something. The paper. The paper was not gain of function research. The end.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

[lost in melb.]

...Fauci is a weasel...


Possibly, but for completely different reasons.

[DemonGeminiX]

We're different. I don't get my opinion from videos unless less the videos showing the actual event. The video is about people talking about something, which is open to interpretation and ego and bluster, manipulations etc. For example, the fact that Rand Paul is aggressive and rude interrupting Fauci for political theatre, which makes it look like he's in the right, whereas he's just an aggressive cunt.

I go to the something. The paper. The paper was not gain of function research. The end.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

Just because they said there was no evidence over a year ago, that doesn't mean that evidence hasn't appeared since then. I'm not saying it has definitively. Here is what I've observed: Trump says the virus was created in a Wuhan lab, people go nuts and deny deny deny, call Trump a racist and xenophobic. A year later, Trump is out of office and now people are saying "It could have come from that lab in Wuhan", like it's a novel idea. Now here's the real deal: The fact that Nature published an article stating that these things can be engineered should give you pause, regardless of their update in March of 2020. No, the article's not a smoking gun that this coronavirus was engineered, but it introduces a shadow of reasonable doubt that this coronavirus could have been engineered. It requires further inquiry, and no, all avenues of inquiry have not been exhausted. If they were, we wouldn't be talking about it. Congress wouldn't be talking about it. Congress is talking about it because there's actionable intelligence that states it could have happened. Our intelligence reports can be really good sometimes. So forget you and your "The end". :lol:

Calling Paul a cunt, but I bet you just love it when somebody like Schumer does the same exact thing. Paul interrupted Fauci because he knows Fauci is full of shit and will try to redirect the dialogue off point, which Fauci does constantly. Paul was keepng Fauci from doing it. It's his job.

The end. :nana:

[FBD]

:lmao: so gain of function is not gain of function, unless its gain of function they're not calling gain of function. this is absolutely preposterous and sad


Its the god damned textbook definition of GoF!!! no different than when the TV wagged idiots to make fun of trump for calling HCQ both a treatment and a cure, hah, what the hell is he talking about? oh nothing, just quoting fucking Fauci!!!

here Fauci is quoted directly yet again and the TV tells people not to believe their lying ears! you might as well get out the meat thermometer and just jab it in there and start pushing...


Remember, Ivermectin is dangerous and ineffective, dont ever take it...and this is a fake headline here, its just not possible :rofl:

https://i.imgur.com/Li9Y1i7.jpg

[lost in melb.]

Just because they said there was no evidence over a year ago, that doesn't mean that evidence hasn't appeared since then. I'm not saying it has definitively. Here is what I've observed: Trump says the virus was created in a Wuhan lab, people go nuts and deny deny deny, call Trump a racist and xenophobic. A year later, Trump is out of office and now people are saying "It could have come from that lab in Wuhan", like it's a novel idea. Now here's the real deal: The fact that Nature published an article stating that these things can be engineered should give you pause, regardless of their update in March of 2020. No, the article's not a smoking gun that this coronavirus was engineered, but it introduces a shadow of reasonable doubt that this coronavirus could have been engineered. It requires further inquiry, and no, all avenues of inquiry have not been exhausted. If they were, we wouldn't be talking about it. Congress wouldn't be talking about it. Congress is talking about it because there's actionable intelligence that states it could have happened. Our intelligence reports can be really good sometimes. So forget you and your "The end". :lol:

Calling Paul a cunt, but I bet you just love it when somebody like Schumer does the same exact thing. Paul interrupted Fauci because he knows Fauci is full of shit and will try to redirect the dialogue off point, which Fauci does constantly. Paul was keepng Fauci from doing it. It's his job.

The end. :nana:

You're talking about a different issue, so congratulations on shadow boxing. I don't disagree with what you're mostly saying.

Nevertheless, the paper clearly demonstrates that body of research was not gain of function. What I think of any of these politicians is irrelevant :nana:

[FBD]

Nevertheless, the paper clearly demonstrates that body of research was not gain of function.

This is preposterous, how is it that anything Fauci historically said is all of a sudden null and void, treated as if he never even said it? The only words of his that matter are the words he's spoken in the past few months or something? :lol:

[DemonGeminiX]

You're talking about a different issue, so congratulations on shadow boxing. I don't disagree with what you're mostly saying.

Nevertheless, the paper clearly demonstrates that body of research was not gain of function. What I think of any of these politicians is irrelevant :nana:

You're talking about a paper that was written in 2015, I'm talking about a virus that started spreading in 2019 and is still deviling us today, and the Congressional inquiry into it. You brought the paper into the conversation, not me. The paper you're pushing wasn't penned by Fauci, and it's not the 2012 Fauci paper that this thread article is referring to. It doesn't matter whether what went on in the 2015 study that was published in Nature was gain of function. What matters is whether the virus we're plagued with today is.

[FBD]

You're talking about a paper that was written in 2015, I'm talking about a virus that started spreading in 2019 and is still deviling us today, and the Congressional inquiry into it. You brought the paper into the conversation, not me. It doesn't matter whether what went on in the study that was published was gain of function. What matters is whether the virus we're plagued with today is.

Rand Paul's wedge was establishing that GoF did indeed get funded, with Fauci's signature - that means if ANY of the research that went on at that Wuhan lab was GoF, Paul is correct, the premise is established, and we can take another step towards everyone finally knowing that this was a purposefully made bioweapon.

[lost in melb.]

You're talking about a paper that was written in 2015, I'm talking about a virus that started spreading in 2019 and is still deviling us today, and the Congressional inquiry into it. You brought the paper into the conversation, not me. It doesn't matter whether what went on in the study that was published was gain of function. What matters is whether the virus we're plagued with today is.

I'm talking about the paper that Rand Paul was talking about, yes. :)

[FBD]

I'm talking about the paper that Rand Paul was talking about, yes. :)

You could always link to the research and highlight relevant portions that support your argument, like I've been doing with you guys

[DemonGeminiX]

I'm talking about the paper that Rand Paul was talking about, yes. :)

I just edited my post above to reflect this. No, the article you quoted is not the one Paul is referring to. Fauci wrote an article in 2012, which the original thread article clearly stated. The one from Nature that you introduced into the conversation is from 2015. Fauci did not write this article. The list of authors/contributors is clearly visible. Fauci's not one of them. The article from 2012 mentioned Fauci's original definition of 'gain of function', which Fauci then denied when Paul pointed it out. Fauci lied under oath.

I see what you're doing. Knock it off.

[FBD]

Here's an article that may help you out, Lost

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/smarter-living/why-its-so-hard-to-admit-youre-wrong.html


>does this fit your definition of GoF research, yes or no?
>THOSE VIRUSES ARE GENETICALLY PROVEN TO BE IMPOSSIBLE PREDECESSORS TO SARS-COV-2019
>Don't dodge the question Dr. Fauci, does this fit your definition of GoF research?
>THOSE VIRUSES ARE GENETICALLY PROVEN TO BE IMPOSSIBLE PREDECESSORS TO SARS-COV-2019, ITS MOLECULARLY UNPOSSIBLE (hope nobody questions the idiocy of that statement!)

[lost in melb.]

By Charles Creitz | Fox News


https://i.imgur.com/LwA7BvD.jpg

Scientists with differing opinions about COVID-19 origins than Dr. Anthony Fauci keep it to themselves because because the top disease expert controls much of their funding, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, told "Fox News Primetime" Tuesday night.

Paul subjected Fauci to stiff questioning during a Senate hearing chaired by Democrat Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota earlier in the day, with Fauci quibbling over Paul's definition of gain-of-function research, which the lawmaker said came from a document sourced by another epidemiological expert.

The senator went on to urge Fauci, the head of the National Institutes of Allergy & Infectious Disease, to reconsider prior testimony denying NIAID or NIH's particular funding endeavors at the Wuhan lab; where many believe COVID-19 originated – citing federal perjury laws.

Paul reacted further to Fauci's behavior and doubled down on his assertion that the 80-year-old Brooklyn, N.Y. native is not letting on as much as he should be on the topic of gain-of-function research funding.

He said he read aloud the NIH's definition of gain-of-function research, as well as a scholarly paper from a cellular biology expert working at Rutgers University in New Jersey, which described Wuhan lab official Dr. Shi Zhengli's work as the textbook definition of such experimentation.

"All Dr. Fauci could do was sputter and call me liar – but he never at any point in time addressed any of the facts that we laid out that the money he was giving to Wuhan was indeed for gain of function."

Paul chalked up the fact he is one of few prominent medical experts – as a doctor himself – speaking out and contradicting Fauci to the assertion that many others in medicine rely on NIAID funding – which Fauci has the ultimate say on.

The senator noted Fauci has worked at the Bethesda, Md.-based NIH since 1968. He was appointed the head of NIAID by President Reagan in 1984.

Host Brian Kilmeade went on to note that Johns Hopkins physician Dr. Marty Makary told him on the "Brian Kilmeade Show" earlier in the day that the NIH distributed $40 billion in research grants in 2020 – but less than one-half-of-one-percent went to COVID-related endeavors.

Makary said Fauci should be ashamed at that statistic, and Kilmeade asked Paul why there is not more outrage on the whole among the medical community:

"He has been [at NIH] for 40 years; probably 39 years too long. But he controls all the funding," Paul warned.

"So, people are deathly afraid of him. Researchers will not speak out. Why have there not been other scientists?"

Paul said that he receives letters from scientists that routinely contradict Fauci's prescriptions and public statements, but that they all offer the same regret: that they are afraid to speak out against what the health care bureaucrat says.

"They are very distrustful of what he is saying. They don't think he is making sense and reading the science accurately," said Paul.

"They're afraid to speak out because many of them are university scientists and they depend on NIH funds: To cross him means it's last money you will ever get."

Paul said Fauci has a "significant conflict of interest" in the Wuhan matter because he was "at the top of the food chain" of funding distribution and now claims none of it went to the dangerous gain-of-function research.

"All he is saying is oh, well, the research now doesn't meet our definition," he said. "He is dancing around the truth. Why? Because if this disease came from the lab and they were funding gain of function, guess what? There is at the very least moral culpability he has for the beginning of the pandemic."

Paul added that in 2012, Fauci made statements about the potential for a pandemic leaking from a lab, and that if such a situation occurred the research would be worth the risk.

In the document Fauci prepared that year, he defended controversial gain-of-function research, saying that the "benefits" gained from the science "outweigh the risk" of an accidental pandemic breaking out.

"It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky," the paper read.

During the hearing Tuesday, Fauci responded to Paul's assertions saying he denies and "resents" them.


I just edited my post above to reflect this. No, the article you quoted is not the one Paul is referring to. Fauci wrote an article in 2012, which the original thread article clearly stated. The one from Nature that you introduced into the conversation is from 2015. Fauci did not write this article. The list of authors/contributors is clearly visible. Fauci's not one of them. The article from 2012 mentioned Fauci's original definition of 'gain of function', which Fauci then denied when Paul pointed it out. Fauci lied under oath.

I see what you're doing. Knock it off.


Which article did Fauci write? Please link to it.

Paul cited a 2015 paper co-authored by Dr. Shi Zhengli, a researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology known for her work with bats. Is that not the paper I linked to?

[lost in melb.]

I see what you're doing. Knock it off.

Stop acting like a mini-rand paul :dunno:

[FBD]

Which article did Fauci write? Please link to it.

Paul cited a 2015 paper co-authored by Dr. Shi Zhengli, a researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology known for her work with bats. Is that not the paper I linked to?

It is superlative cognitive dissonance to know what that paper is and try to say it does not qualify as GoF research. Rand Paul outlined it pretty clearly - they took viruses in animals that didnt infect humans, and they gave them the ability to infect humans. There is no natural link, and Argumentum ad Vericundiam is really about all you're wielding as a weapon here.

https://i.imgur.com/SeW4d2z.jpg

[DemonGeminiX]

Which article did Fauci write? Please link to it.

Paul cited a 2015 paper co-authored by Dr. Shi Zhengli, a researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology known for her work with bats. Is that not the paper I linked to?

Ok, you misread something. Paul referred to the NIH's definition of "gain of function research" which Fauci defended in an article in 2012. That is directly from the post. The article source that Paul is referring to is not named. Paul used an article that Zhengli authored as an example of "gain of function research". However, the post does not name that specific article either. Without further clarification from the author of the original article in the original post, we have no basis for assumption on which articles Paul is using. That is probably by design by the publisher. Zhengli has probably authored hundreds of articles. You tripped over one of them.

I misread something. I said that Fauci defined gain of function research in an article in 2012. That's not true. From the original post, Paul is using an NIH definition of gain of function research. The definition of gain of function research has probably been around for a very long time. The 2012 from the original post is where Fauci defended gain of function research and stated that if a lab leak occurred, then the research benefits outweighed the risks of outbreak. I don't know who published it or where to locate it, but if it's found, Fauci's name will be on it.

[FBD]

The 2012 from the original post is where Fauci defended gain of function research and stated that if a lab leak occurred, then the research benefits outweighed the risks of outbreak..

there's more than likely video/articles of it already uploaded to this forum, Fauci literally said this shit. ya know, before the plandemic when it wasnt really a problem to be saying such things.

[lost in melb.]

Ok, you misread something. Paul referred to the NIH's definition of "gain of function research" which Fauci defended in an article in 2012. That is directly from the post. The article source that Paul is referring to is not named. Paul used an article that Zhengli authored as an example of "gain of function research". However, the post does not name that specific article either. Without further clarification from the author of the original article in the original post, we have no basis for assumption on which articles Paul is using. That is probably by design by the publisher. Zhengli has probably authored hundreds of articles. You tripped over one of them.

I misread something. I said that Fauci defined gain of function research in an article in 2012. That's not true. From the original post, Paul is using an NIH definition of gain of function research. The definition of gain of function research has probably been around for a very long time. The 2012 from the original post is where Fauci defended gain of function research and stated that if a lab leak occurred, then the research benefits outweighed the risks of outbreak. I don't know who published it or where to locate it, but if it's found, Fauci's name will be on it.

Fair enough.

There's something going on between those two, in addition. That's for sure.

I believe Fauci sold out the American people with mask misinformation, so I don't hold him in high regard either.

[DemonGeminiX]

Fair enough.

There's something going on between those two, in addition. That's for sure.

I believe Fauci sold out the American people with mask misinformation, so I don't hold him in high regard either.

Fauci and Paul have been going at it for more than a year. Paul, along with millions more, believes that Covid was created in a lab, and Fauci is in the camp of natural permutation. Fauci is a bit condescending in tone, and he does have a little bit more power over things than most liberty-minded people are comfortable with. I'm not saying that he isn't smart. On paper, Fauci's a brilliant guy. You don't get to be in the top tier of US medical research since the late 1960s if you're not. But that being said, Fauci's more of a politician these days than he is a strict scientist. He's been in DC for far too long. Anyway, they should have a ring announcer and referee when they get together, because they're always going after each other.

[lost in melb.]

On these points we agree.

[FBD]

You don't get to be in the top tier of US medical research since the late 1960s if you're not.

I'm sure the work he was doing researching gay bath houses in the 80s was very important work

but then again if one considers the HIV protein spike that the Indians found in SARS-COVID19...maybe it was relevant after all


before too long, this will be the retort

https://i.imgur.com/pIDhT5x.png