Jump to content

Honoring Dr. Fauci's Legacy in Advancing Public Health


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, stevenl said:

He choose the wrong career path then. 

i thought he was a Microbiologist/Virologist, not a Botanist.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pair of posts with unsourced and unsubstantiated purported factual claims has been removed, along with a trolling meme post.

 

Per the forum's rules:

 

"In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source."

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johng said:

Dr McCormick  made an interesting statement.

 

 

 

This Dr. McCormick, before he became a member of Congress:

Physician running for congress in GA comes under fire for spreading misinformation

Updated: 6:42 PM EDT September 29, 2021

 

ATLANTA — Critics say a physician running for congress in Georgia has spread misinformation on masks and for some COVID vaccines. Dr. Rich McCormick is a physician who came close to winning the 7th district congressional race last year, and he's running for it again next year.

...

Recently, McCormick has become somewhat regular on NewsMax, a cable channel that surged in popularity among conservatives in 2020.

 

"I think the delta variant is being blown out of proportion. We're not seeing the mortality rate spike. We're not seeing people hospitalized en masse. We're not seeing them go to the ICU," McCormick told NewsMax on July 8, just weeks before hospitalizations and mortality started to surge.

 

During the same NewsMax interview, he also falsely claimed that children are not at risk.

 

(more)

 

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/critics-physician-running-for-congress-in-georgia-sidesteps-science/85-d6bf03d9-9efe-4a13-be81-074023b698f8

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

 

This Dr. McCormick, before he became a member of Congress:

Physician running for congress in GA comes under fire for spreading misinformation

Updated: 6:42 PM EDT September 29, 2021

 

ATLANTA — Critics say a physician running for congress in Georgia has spread misinformation on masks and for some COVID vaccines. Dr. Rich McCormick is a physician who came close to winning the 7th district congressional race last year, and he's running for it again next year.

...

Recently, McCormick has become somewhat regular on NewsMax, a cable channel that surged in popularity among conservatives in 2020.

 

"I think the delta variant is being blown out of proportion. We're not seeing the mortality rate spike. We're not seeing people hospitalized en masse. We're not seeing them go to the ICU," McCormick told NewsMax on July 8, just weeks before hospitalizations and mortality started to surge.

 

During the same NewsMax interview, he also falsely claimed that children are not at risk.

 

(more)

 

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/critics-physician-running-for-congress-in-georgia-sidesteps-science/85-d6bf03d9-9efe-4a13-be81-074023b698f8

 

 

I think you've just proved the point of his speech. Did you listen to it?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, roquefort said:

50% of scientific papers contain fake data

36 minutes ago, roquefort said:

basic research?

I have looked at professional analyses of scientific data that would count as fake but the amount is not 50% -

Martinson et al. (2005), which is one of the largest and most frequently cited surveys on misconduct published to date. This study appears to be rather conservative, because without it the pooled average frequency with which scientists admit they have committed misconduct would jump to nearly 3%. 

 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/

 

Moreover, no one appears to agree with you about Covid vaccine being the problem created using fake information. Scientific research shows it is misinformation on Facebook and Twitter that causes people to believe "they are out to get us." It is just not proven by the scientific community.

 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3451  (2024)

 

Perhaps you should provide a link to the research proving the vaccine data was faked (NOT Facebook) so I and others can see for ourselves.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, ericbj said:

Clearly there are irreconcilable differences of opinion concerning Dr Fauci.

 

However there are TWO aspects to his potential culpability.

 

This article touches upon one of them, not much considered as yet on this forum:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rand-paul-says-fauci-caught-lies-congress-coronavirus-research-dead-rights

You are quoting an entertainment channel that lost a lot of money when it was proven in court that they lie?

P.S. Rand Paul is an eye doctor. He specializes in cataract and glaucoma surgeries, LASIK procedures, and corneal transplants, not vaccines.

Edited by Purdey
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, ericbj said:

Clearly there are irreconcilable differences of opinion concerning Dr Fauci.

 

However there are TWO aspects to his potential culpability.

 

This article touches upon one of them, not much considered as yet on this forum:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rand-paul-says-fauci-caught-lies-congress-coronavirus-research-dead-rights

 

Rand Paul has his dubious opinion, and that's all it is... His call for a criminal prosecution of Fauci in the cited Fox report went nowhere, because there was no credible criminal case to be made.

 

Per the Associated Press:

 

"A GOP-led subcommittee has spent over a year probing the nation’s response to the pandemic and whether U.S.-funded research in China may have played any role in how it started — yet found no evidence linking Fauci to wrongdoing."

...

Republicans repeated unproven accusations against the longtime National Institutes of Health scientist..."

 

https://apnews.com/article/fauci-covid-pandemic-origin-congress-a66625482f25824476ee315484790230

 

Per the New York Times:

 

"And for all the hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and more than 100 hours of closed-door testimony that the panel reviewed, lawmakers produced nothing on Monday linking Dr. Fauci to the beginnings of the Covid outbreak in China...."

 

New York Times

https://archive.ph/Q2NKi

 

Per subcommittee ranking member Raul Ruiz:

 

Ruiz added that the evidence found that "Dr. Fauci did not fund research through the EcoHealth Alliance Grant that caused the Covid-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci did not lie about gain of function research in Wuhan China, Dr. Fauci did not orchestrate a campaign to suppress the lab-leak theory."

 

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/anthony-fauci-covid-origins-hearing-06-03-24/index.html

 

 

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Purdey said:

You are quoting an entertainment channel that lost a lot of money when it was proven in court that they lie?

P.S. Rand Paul is an eye doctor.

Rand Paul is an eye doctor so his opinion on whether Fauci lied to congress doesn't count? That's a strange kind of logic. What about other congressmen who aren't doctors at all?

Edited by roquefort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Purdey said:

I have looked at professional analyses of scientific data that would count as fake but the amount is not 50% -

Martinson et al. (2005), which is one of the largest and most frequently cited surveys on misconduct published to date. This study appears to be rather conservative, because without it the pooled average frequency with which scientists admit they have committed misconduct would jump to nearly 3%. 

 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/

 

Moreover, no one appears to agree with you about Covid vaccine being the problem created using fake information. Scientific research shows it is misinformation on Facebook and Twitter that causes people to believe "they are out to get us." It is just not proven by the scientific community.

 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3451  (2024)

 

Perhaps you should provide a link to the research proving the vaccine data was faked (NOT Facebook) so I and others can see for ourselves.

 

If you read my post I said up to 50% was fake or non-replicable. I didn't mention the vaccine data, I was referring to scientific research generally.

 

Here's the link.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/02/22/there-is-a-worrying-amount-of-fraud-in-medical-research?etear=nl_weekly_6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, roquefort said:

Rand Paul is an eye doctor so his opinion on whether Fauci lied to congress doesn't count? That's a strange kind of logic. What about other congressmen who aren't doctors?

He is not an expert on vaccines, which is why he wouldn't know a lie if it fell on him.

I notice you still don't have any scientific evidence, just a proven liar entertainment channel and a fake doctor.

"In the spring of 2010 stories first swirled around Sen. Rand Paul’s certification as an ophthalmologist by an outfit called the “National Ophthalmology Board,” an entity he founded." This board "has been out of business since 2011, and in any event, does not under Kentucky law permit him to advertise as “board certified.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/11/08/rand-paul-has-another-problem/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, roquefort said:

If you read my post I said up to 50% was fake or non-replicable. I didn't mention the vaccine data, I was referring to scientific research generally.

 

Here's the link.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/02/22/there-is-a-worrying-amount-of-fraud-in-medical-research?etear=nl_weekly_6

Cool - refer to a gated website so everyone is locked out except you. I was hoping to read a real scientific research paper but never mind... Fraud or faked results are common but the difference is that if said research cannot be replicated, it is ignored. You should not think scientists accept it without replication.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Rand Paul has his dubious opinion, and that's all it is... His call for a criminal prosecution of Fauci in the cited Fox report went nowhere, because there was no credible criminal case to be made.

 

Per the Associated Press:

 

"A GOP-led subcommittee has spent over a year probing the nation’s response to the pandemic and whether U.S.-funded research in China may have played any role in how it started — yet found no evidence linking Fauci to wrongdoing."

...

Republicans repeated unproven accusations against the longtime National Institutes of Health scientist..."

 

https://apnews.com/article/fauci-covid-pandemic-origin-congress-a66625482f25824476ee315484790230

 

Per the New York Times:

 

"And for all the hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and more than 100 hours of closed-door testimony that the panel reviewed, lawmakers produced nothing on Monday linking Dr. Fauci to the beginnings of the Covid outbreak in China...."

 

New York Times

https://archive.ph/Q2NKi

 

Per subcommittee ranking member Raul Ruiz:

 

Ruiz added that the evidence found that "Dr. Fauci did not fund research through the EcoHealth Alliance Grant that caused the Covid-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci did not lie about gain of function research in Wuhan China, Dr. Fauci did not orchestrate a campaign to suppress the lab-leak theory."

 

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/anthony-fauci-covid-origins-hearing-06-03-24/index.html

 

 

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/nih-director-admits-taxpayers-funded-gain-of-function-research-in-wuhan-four-years-after-covid-pandemic-began/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Cool - refer to a gated website so everyone is locked out except you. I was hoping to read a real scientific research paper but never mind... Fraud or faked results are common but the difference is that if said research cannot be replicated, it is ignored. You should not think scientists accept it without replication.

For some mysterious reason it won't allow me to upload the pdf. PM me if you're interested.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...