Jump to content

Rand Paul Called Fauci a Liar


Airbrush
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Yesterday, 5-12-2021, Rand Paul called Dr. Fauci a liar about what happened in the Wuhan lab. Fauci needs to explain how he didn't lie to Rand Paul.  Would someone please bring a microphone to Dr. Fauci?

"Sen. Rand Paul said that Dr. Anthony Fauci lied Tuesday when he said that the National Institute of Health (NIH) did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the coronavirus outbreak."

"I would say we don’t know for certain [where the virus came from], but I would say what Dr. Fauci said yesterday was verifiably false," Paul said. "He said no NIH money went to the Wuhan Institute for gain of function. Well, the main doctor there, the one they call the bat scientist or the bat woman... wrote a paper that MIT scientists have looked at that they said was gain of function -- meaning juicing up these viruses to make them very potent and infect humans. She wrote this paper and, in the paper, acknowledged her funding came from Dr. Fauci’s group, the NIAID, which is part of NIH. So, he is verifiably telling you something that is not true."

Rand Paul: Dr. Fauci "Lied" About NIH Funding Wuhan Lab | Video | RealClearPolitics

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Yesterday, 5-12-2021, Rand Paul called Dr. Fauci a liar about what happened in the Wuhan lab. Fauci needs to explain how he didn't lie to Rand Paul.  Would someone please bring a microphone to Dr. Fauci?

How would Fauci prove a negative? 

Why doesn’t Rand Paul have to present actual evidence? What is the paper he alludes to? How do we know his allegations are accurate/true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Fauci should be able to clear up this confusion with a simple statement.  He doesn't need to prove a negative.  All Fauci needs to do is explain how Paul is either wrong or lying about him lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Yesterday, 5-12-2021, Rand Paul called Dr. Fauci a liar about what happened in the Wuhan lab. Fauci needs to explain how he didn't lie to Rand Paul.  Would someone please bring a microphone to Dr. Fauci?

"Sen. Rand Paul said that Dr. Anthony Fauci lied Tuesday when he said that the National Institute of Health (NIH) did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the coronavirus outbreak."

"I would say we don’t know for certain [where the virus came from], but I would say what Dr. Fauci said yesterday was verifiably false," Paul said. "He said no NIH money went to the Wuhan Institute for gain of function. Well, the main doctor there, the one they call the bat scientist or the bat woman... wrote a paper that MIT scientists have looked at that they said was gain of function -- meaning juicing up these viruses to make them very potent and infect humans. She wrote this paper and, in the paper, acknowledged her funding came from Dr. Fauci’s group, the NIAID, which is part of NIH. So, he is verifiably telling you something that is not true."

Rand Paul: Dr. Fauci "Lied" About NIH Funding Wuhan Lab | Video | RealClearPolitics

So far as I can see, Fauci is likely to be right. I try to avoid relying on sources with a political bias, and it is well-known that the US Right has been out to get Fauci for ages because he has credibility and stood up to Trump, making Trump look like the idiot he was.  This story for some reason seems to be carried only by right wing outlets.

However I did find this "fact check", made last month on the topic, which concludes that the accusations against Fauci are false: https://www.ibtimes.sg/fact-check-did-anthony-fauci-fund-bat-research-wuhan-lab-by-bypassing-rules-56635

 

  

 

28 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Dr. Fauci should be able to clear up this confusion with a simple statement.  He doesn't need to prove a negative.  All Fauci needs to do is explain how Paul is either wrong or lying about him lying.

...unless he has better things to do than dance to the tune of a grandstanding politician, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Dr. Fauci should be able to clear up this confusion with a simple statement.  He doesn't need to prove a negative. 

You’re asking him to show he’s not lying about something he says doesn’t exist - the financial support. How do you show that it doesn’t exist?

Quote

All Fauci needs to do is explain how Paul is either wrong or lying about him lying.

What’s to explain? Fauci already made his statement. He shouldn’t have to address baseless accusations, and the link provided by exchemist indicates that this is baseless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you take the claim at face value, it does not make sense.

If I give the local university money to research hair restorer, and that university also does research on chemical weapons, am I funding chemical weapons?

If they say they spent my money on the weapons, does that mean I funded them, or does it mean they stole my money and misused it?

So the interesting question is why is Rand Paul making allegations which do not even make sense?

And the other question is why is the OP repeating them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Even if you take the claim at face value, it does not make sense.

If I give the local university money to research hair restorer, and that university also does research on chemical weapons, am I funding chemical weapons?

 

Exactly what the article points out. There was funding to investigate the virus, but that’s not the same as researching “gain of function”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The entire NIH grants database is searchable. Here's the results for Wuhan University. Two R01's awarded to the same PI for AIDS related immunology research. 

Here's the Chinese Academy of Sciences results. None awarded by the NIAID. 

That took all of two minutes to disprove. Unless, another institution gave the a subaward from their NIAID grant, but the fact the author's name is not given, the paper not cited and the grant number isn't stated, it's rather impossible to verify that situation. 

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, exchemist said:

So far as I can see, Fauci is likely to be right. I try to avoid relying on sources with a political bias, and it is well-known that the US Right has been out to get Fauci for ages because he has credibility and stood up to Trump, making Trump look like the idiot he was.  This story for some reason seems to be carried only by right wing outlets.

However I did find this "fact check", made last month on the topic, which concludes that the accusations against Fauci are false: https://www.ibtimes.sg/fact-check-did-anthony-fauci-fund-bat-research-wuhan-lab-by-bypassing-rules-56635

I agree.  Thanks for the info!  You get plus 1 for that.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a weasel tactic. Rand Paul did not provide any trackable information on:

- the name of the researcher (installing calling them dismissively bat woman)

- the specific grant he alludes to

- any reference on the paper.

This could just be sloppy, but more realistically it gives him and his ilk the ability to then continue to say that there is 'reasonable' doubt, or 'some' have said that  and so on. If Fauci responds to that, there will be something else next week. It is not an honest inquiry. Rather the goal is to discredit the person and spin a narrative that suits their base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

'Batwoman' is very well known for her work in tranmissible coronavirus deseases of bat origin.
Her name is Shi Zhengli.

Shi Zhengli - Wikipedia

A Google search of 'Bat scientist of Wuhan' returns 3 620 000 results.

Far from ambiguous, CharonY, but I do agree with your assessment of R Paul's character.

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

'Batwoman' is very well known for her work in tranmissible coronavirus deseases of bat origin.
Her name is Shi Zhengli.

Shi Zhengli - Wikipedia

A Google search of 'Bat scientist of Wuhan' returns 3 620 000 results.

Far from ambiguous, CharonY, but I do agree with your assessment of R Paul's character.

I am aware of Dr. Shi's work. But it is one thing to use the moniker in an article or perhaps a social media post, whereas in press interview and especially if accusations are made one would expect something to be a bit more specific. To be fair, she may actually be fond of the moniker and I suspect I am projecting a bit but I am personally not fond of these kind of nicknames, especially when they are used without the actual name.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CharonY said:

This is a weasel tactic. Rand Paul did not provide any trackable information on:

- the name of the researcher (installing calling them dismissively bat woman)

- the specific grant he alludes to

- any reference on the paper.

This could just be sloppy, but more realistically it gives him and his ilk the ability to then continue to say that there is 'reasonable' doubt, or 'some' have said that  and so on. If Fauci responds to that, there will be something else next week. It is not an honest inquiry. Rather the goal is to discredit the person and spin a narrative that suits their base.

It's just grandstanding, in one of these farcical kangaroo court televised committees that US politics loves so much.

As you say, kicking Fauci gets points on the US Right, as he is one of their hate objects, being a purveyor of objectivity and truthfulness.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, exchemist said:

It's just grandstanding, in one of these farcical kangaroo court televised committees that US politics loves so much.

As you say, kicking Fauci gets points on the US Right, as he is one of their hate objects, being a purveyor of objectivity and truthfulness.  

That's what I was thinking.  When Trump called Dr. Fauci and Birx "self-promoters trying to reinvent history" that was the best example of Trumpist psych projection I have ever witnessed.  Trump, the king of branding and self-promotion, calling a couple of doctors self-promoters is funny and sick.

The Latest: Trump blasts Fauci and Birx as 'self-promoters' (msn.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So from Shi Zhengli's wiki page I dug up the gain of function paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524054/

And searched the the grants cited on NIH Reporter: R01AI089728 - Li Fang, University of Minnesota. No subawards listed. R01AI110700 - Li Fang University of Minnesota, Robert S Baric University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. No subawards listed. 

Color me shocked that this five minute search shows no NIAID money went to the Wuhan Virology Institute, and Rand Paul is full of shit. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dr.Faucis of the world are why we have a chance to survive ever changing health threats that may be in our future. Dr Fauci is not infallible but he sure as hell is professional! Fauci's tract record speaks for itself !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand Paul's medical experience/education is in ophthalmology. Fauci has been working in immunosuppression for over 40's have initially started working for National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in 1980. Paul doesn't have the background to make any claims about which unknown places (Paul himself admits he doesn't know) covid19 may have come from. In terms of discipline, experience and comprehension of data Fauci is the one in a position to set the odds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Fauci has been working in immunosuppression for over…

Unsure if I’m missing something or if maybe this was an autocorrect fail, but did you happen to instead mean immunology, or even immunoregulation or immune mediated diseases? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JayTony said:

The Dr.Faucis of the world are why we have a chance to survive ever changing health threats that may be in our future. Dr Fauci is not infallible but he sure as hell is professional! Fauci's tract record speaks for itself !

Some of Dr.Fauci's awards..Arthur S.Fleming Award,Honorary Doctor of Science-Boston College,Ernst Jung Prize,Honorary Doctor of Science-Duke University,Honorary Doctor of Science-Colgate,Honorary Doctor of Public Service-Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania,Albany Medical Center Prize,American Academy of Achievement and Golden Plate Award,Mary Woodard Lasker Public Service Award,American Association of Immunologists Lifetime Achievement Award,George M. Kober Medal,Association of American Physicians,President's Medal of Freedom,USCF Medal,Robert Koch Gold Medal,Prince Mahidol Award,Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters-Johns Hopkins University,John Derks Canada Gairdner Global Award,Honorary Doctor of Science Commerce Health Award,Honorary Doctor Of Science speaker-American Uni.-Boston University,2020 Federal Employee of the Year,Presidential Citation for Exemplary Leadership-National Academy of Medicine,Ripple of Hope Award from Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights,Time Magazine Guardian of the Year,Harris Dean Award,Public Welfare Medal of the National Academy of Sciences,and the Dan David Prize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure nobody here is blinkered enough to suggest Fauci ought to be dismissed based on misguided words from Rand Paul so that last post likely wasn’t necessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2021 at 12:03 AM, iNow said:

Pretty sure nobody here is blinkered enough to suggest Fauci ought to be dismissed based on misguided words from Rand Paul so that last post likely wasn’t necessary. 

I give it a plus, though I also think Paul is obligated to scrutinize and question him, obvious politics notwithstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect we agree. Scrutiny and questions are good. Kabuki theater, tribal posturing, peacocking, and grandstanding, or kangaroo courts… not so much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, iNow said:

I suspect we agree. Scrutiny and questions are good. Kabuki theater, tribal posturing, peacocking, and grandstanding, or kangaroo courts… not so much. 

Unfortunately that's the 90% it seems...on a good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unfortunately that's the 90% it seems...on a good day.

Oh, didn’t realize we’d managed to get that number so low. Progress! ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.