Are you serious? There is reams of evidence that people like Fauci lied and FaceBook, YouTube, etc. censored. In fact, ask them - they admitted it.
Lol. Please provide some peer-reviewed studies that relate to the DOJ and their non-partisanship.
Peer reviewed studies generally referred to scientific articles. While there are perhaps legal journals that address this, that is not my field of expertise. I just personally known six or seven DOJ attorneys/supervisors and at least 4 of them are Republicans. If you have access to legal journals and want to share the articles confirming this bias, be my guest.
Define censored. Is it censorship to disallow yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater?
I merely stated that I would be shocked with Fauci was charged, much less indicted (because if you understand the context of the emails vs his testimony, he clearly didn't lie to Congress). That is all.
My CV would suggest that you are wrong on both points.
Incorrect. But definitions are just semantics. The vaccine works as it is designed to (recall mRNA vaccines are new and not like other vaccines) by reducing the instances of severe illness. And they are safe.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. In what way is it a bioweapon? Please explain your understand of how the mRNA vaccines works. And please provide these DARPA receipts you speak of. OMFG. Too funny.
1) Fauci did lie to Congress, that is why a criminal referral was sent to the DOJ. There is tons of evidence in the public sphere if you have a shred of intellectual honesty.
No, the criminal referral was sent because Rand Paul
Sigh. I went through this on another thread (IndyNittany was actually in my corner for that one) about a year ago where my "opponent" insisted that I could not possibly be a PhD nor a scientist. I posted both by CV and my transcripts (as well as a copy of the award he claimed I could not have possibly received). I'm not doing all that again. If you care that much, you can go search for it on this forum.
I don't care.
The person claiming that there is malfeasance is the one required to demonstrate malfeasance. So that's on you. I don't see conspiracies everywhere. Conspiracies are INCREDIBLY rare.
You claimed the malfeasance of Rand Paul having a political agenda and not understanding testimony. Keep in mind that he has a medical degree from Duke and is a medical doctor by profession and training. So by your own words, you must prove the malfeasance you claimed against him.
I was definitely not ultra cautious about covid (I am fully vaxxed, but probably wore masks less than most people, and I was one of the first people back in my office when we voluntarily transitioned from fully remote to hybrid. I also never really used hand sanitizer because it was pretty clear early on that "surface contact spread" really wasn't a thing).
By the way, the "new flu" killed about 3 million people worldwide, so some semblance of caution (like getting vaxxed) seems like it was probably a good idea.
The true death toll of COVID-19 estimating global excess mortality
Estimates suggest the total number of global deaths attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 is at least 3 million, representing 1.2 million more deaths than officially reported.www.who.int
You’re not a scientist. You’re a brainwashed liberal. People in my town died of other causes but wrote up as Covid because they would get a bunch of government money. One guy died from a motorcycle accident and his death was ruled by Covid. Just realize not everything you hear, read, or say is 100% true, then maybe I’ll believe some of what you say. But all you do is argue with everyone who doesn’t believe everything you post. Typical liberal.I was definitely not ultra cautious about covid (I am fully vaxxed, but probably wore masks less than most people, and I was one of the first people back in my office when we voluntarily transitioned from fully remote to hybrid. I also never really used hand sanitizer because it was pretty clear early on that "surface contact spread" really wasn't a thing).
By the way, the "new flu" killed about 3 million people worldwide, so some semblance of caution (like getting vaxxed) seems like it was probably a good idea.
The true death toll of COVID-19 estimating global excess mortality
Estimates suggest the total number of global deaths attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 is at least 3 million, representing 1.2 million more deaths than officially reported.
He may be getting paid to argue the administration's talking points on this topic. I find it hard to explain how he otherwise is making dozens of posts on the topic every day throughout the work week. I'm retired. I have the ability to spend time posting.
Well, since I said, "why do you say," that is what I was asking. I could be wrong, but to my knowledge there has never been a study of ivermectin that wasn't designed to fail. Ivermectin is believed to prevent/slow viral replication. The study that was done early in the pandemic was conducted exclusively on hospitalized patients, in which the virus had already substantially replicated. It was designed to fail, because if it worked, it would prevent an EUA from being implemented for a non-approved pharmaceutical.
Respectfully UNC, here and in so many of your posts you suffer from the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Just because someone has a credential, doesn't mean they are accurate or even trustworthy. So much of what the govt told us was essential was proven false. Much of what "Some internet guy" with an ability to reason, was slandered over during the pandemic, turned out to be true...because it was the most logical and obvious.
No, you claimed the DOJ was corrupt. Prove it.
Already proven in another thread. Go look it up if you care. I'm not going down this path again because even after I show you the documents, you will tell me they are faked (which is what happened last time) even though they are very clearly not faked.
I'm actually not a liberal and I am definitely a scientist.
I said that the DOJ would not press charges against Fauci while Democrats were in the white house. That is so far proven true.
Did you read the paper I shared? It's from 2022. It's not early on. And it is clear from the way it is written that the authors were hoping to find that ivermectin worked. So it wasn't "designed to fail."
Couple of things here:
That's very true. That's why I rely on the peer reviewed literature, not just on some talking head saying so. Note that I have never posted a video or transcript of Fauci or Gupta or any other person in the media. I'm going directly to the science because then you can see *exactly* how the study was conducted, what the strengths and weaknesses of the study was and whether the conclusions of the study match the results. Some studies are better than others so you have to actually read and critically examine them.
Please give examples of what *scientific* things the government said that were false. Not policy things but science things. And keep in mind because this was a novel virus our understanding of transmission and treatment evolved very quickly (that's what science does). For example, early on there was emphasis on surface transmission (I was frankly quite skeptical of this all along) but it was later learned this was a very, very minor risk in terms of spread.
Please provide a peer reviewed citation for this assertion. I'd be happy to read it.
See comments above about the important of reading the literature instead of listening to people on video.
So you are not implying that DOJ is corrupt, you are merely pointing out that Fauci is unlikely to be charged (with, IMHO, is because he didn't lie and it is clear he didn't lie)
I don't care. You find it if you care. You should be able to pull up all my old posts. It was on a Sandusky thread, if that helps you. (edit: or you can ask Indy. He knows I am a scientist based on that earlier thread).
Oh I definitely think the DOJ is corrupt. That just wasn't my claim that I had stated. I began to give reasons that support that when you challenged it, but you accused me of changing the topic. So let's be clear, do you want to discuss the DOJ's corruption or not? If so, today is an excellent day to have that discussion.
I do not. I'm only here to correct scientific inaccuracies. I do not pretend to be a lawyer or know much about DOJ except what I know from my friends who work there.
So seriously, are you being paid to be on these forums pushing the government talking points? That is the only way that your being here constantly throughout the work days posting makes any sense.
LOL. I wish I could make money just by correcting you. I've already explained why I'm on here occasionally during the day. You'll also notice I sometimes goes days (or weeks) without posting. Sometimes I'm more busy than other times.
Wow....no self-awareness, no sense of humor, inflated self-opinion, some kind of need to answer immediately to show how smart you are.
I admit I got sucked into responding to a topic I am not here to discuss. Merely out of frustration with certain posters trying to make everything into a conspiracy theory.
You haven't corrected me. You have talked in circles and refused to provide evidence to your claims.
I've provided peer reviewed citations that refute any claims about a lack of vaccine safety or efficacy. If you don't consider that "correcting" I don't know what to tell you.
Just as I suspected, you are not serious.
The same “peers” that claimed they were not involved in GOF with the Chinese Communists?
Rand Paul was an opthalmologist and hasn't practiced in 13 years. So it's not out of the realm of possibility that he doesn't understand everything about virology and gain of function research.
What peer reviewed articles have been censored?
How am I not serious?
So you have moved from he doesn't understand to it's not out of the realm of possibility? You made a claim and now it appears that you are admitting that there is a low probability of your claim. You are just dishonest. How about you admit that you lied.
So it's clear from his referral to the DOJ that he doesn't understand. The implication that he is a doctor and therefore must understand is wrong. So I pointed out that a "retired" opthamologist might not understand virology research (because clearly that is what happened).
