Lying Weasel Fauci's Infatuation with Fame, While People were Dying
- Thread starter WCM
- Start date
Yakuda
Verified User
So you're suggesting this was a purposeful effort to "get fauci" but having the NY legislature temporarily change state laws to allow a gold digging whore to file a civil case so you can call trump a "rapist" is not a purposeful effort to "get trump"?
So you are saying the vaccine Trump discovered never was a vaccine, that would be typical
And how does a society attain a 98% recovery rate from a novel virus that has no natural immunity?
Fauci directed NIAID for nearly four decades and was the key official overseeing much of this portfolio, including advocacy for the research’s value in understanding threats and developing countermeasures, while supporting the 2014 pause and later oversight processes. His immediate predecessor was Richard M. Krause (NIAID director ~1975–1984). Modern “GoF” terminology and the high-profile influenza/SARS-style debates largely post-date Krause’s tenure, but pathogen research (including enhancements for study) has longer roots in US biodefense and infectious-disease funding that predates Fauci. The decades-long pattern of funding, the international grants, and the formal pauses primarily fall under Fauci’s leadership.
In other words they should have encouraged social contact to continue to test if people had a natural immunity to a novel virus, in other words to see if it was actually a novel virus?
What a dumb line of bullshit.
The 3 non-vaccines developed by Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca remain the basis of all mRNA sequencers used today - and still heavily funded by the U.S. Government.
The shot Kam-Kam refused to take 'CUZ TWUMP remains identical to the one she demanded by administered by force on the population at large.
The only change was the party in charge. But for you of the hive, nothing else matters.
Oh, and the J&J version was found to be so deadly that it had to be pulled from the market.
Have you gotten this weeks "booster?"
They are framed responses, are you really they limited
How does a society attain a 98% recovery rate from a novel virus that has no natural immunity?
A society attains a high recovery rate (e.g., ~98%) from a novel virus primarily because most infections are not inherently lethal for the majority of hosts, combined with basic supportive care, age/health stratification of risk, and the rapid development of adaptive immunity in survivors. There is no requirement for prior natural (pre-existing) immunity or extraordinary interventions for this outcome to occur.
Core Biological Reality
- Innate + adaptive response still works without prior exposure. A completely novel pathogen triggers innate defenses (interferons, inflammation, phagocytes, etc.) immediately. Adaptive immunity (antibodies, T-cells) takes days to weeks to ramp up on first encounter, but for the large majority of people and for most respiratory viruses this is sufficient to clear the infection. Prior “natural immunity” accelerates and strengthens the response; its absence mainly increases the chance of a more symptomatic first infection, not automatic high lethality.
- Virulence is a property of the virus–host interaction, not a binary. Many novel viruses (or novel strains) produce mostly mild or moderate disease in healthy people. High recovery rates are the default outcome when the pathogen does not systematically destroy vital organs or trigger uncontrollable cytokine storms in most hosts. Extremely high case-fatality rates (Ebola-range, untreated historical smallpox in naïve populations, etc.) are the exception, not the rule.
- Infection fatality rate (IFR) is heavily age- and comorbidity-dependent. Even with zero prior immunity, IFR is typically orders of magnitude lower in children and healthy working-age adults than in the frail elderly or those with severe underlying conditions. A population-level recovery rate near 98% is therefore statistically expected if the virus behaves like many observed respiratory pathogens and the age structure is not extremely skewed toward the highest-risk groups.
What Actually Moves the Needle
- Supportive medical care (oxygen, fluids, secondary-infection management, anticoagulation where indicated, etc.) reduces deaths among the minority who progress to severe disease. This does not require sterilizing immunity or a specific antiviral.
- Isolation or shielding of the highest-risk groups lowers the observed population fatality rate without changing individual recovery biology.
- Once a substantial fraction of the population has recovered, population-level immunity rises and subsequent waves become less lethal on average (both because of immunity and because selection often favors less-virulent transmission).
High Recovery Rates Novel Viruses | Shared Grok Conversation
How does a society attain a 98% recovery rate from a novel virus that has no natural immunity?
grok.com
In what way?
Because you of the hive need to protect a man who helped develop a biological weapon the killed millions?
Hitler got nothing on you, Arachnid.
What does that even mean, Anchovies?
Of course, I'll understand if you don't know, naturally.
Poor Anchovies.
Pfizer, who developed the vaccine first, was not funded by the Trump, and you still haven’t answered the question, so the vaccine you said wasn’t a vaccine was the same vaccine that Trump said he was responsible for developing, that his Operation Warp Speed was aimed at creating?
encouraged? no. inventing my position to argue it...what is that called archives?
And you still seem confused about “novel virus.” We already knew the virus was novel. “Novel” simply means new—not that nobody could have any natural immune response to it.
And again, if humans were literally incapable of mounting any immune response to the virus, a vaccine would be useless too. Vaccines work by presenting the immune system with an antigen so it can develop a targeted response and memory.
Because without it Paul would have endlessly went after Fauci over and over again, Rand just can’t let go that Fauci embarrassed him continuously
How does a society attain a 98% recovery rate from a novel virus that has no natural immunity?
A society attains a high recovery rate (e.g., ~98%) from a novel virus primarily because most infections are not inherently lethal for the majority of hosts, combined with basic supportive care, age/health stratification of risk, and the rapid development of adaptive immunity in survivors. There is no requirement for prior natural (pre-existing) immunity or extraordinary interventions for this outcome to occur.
Core Biological Reality
- Innate + adaptive response still works without prior exposure. A completely novel pathogen triggers innate defenses (interferons, inflammation, phagocytes, etc.) immediately. Adaptive immunity (antibodies, T-cells) takes days to weeks to ramp up on first encounter, but for the large majority of people and for most respiratory viruses this is sufficient to clear the infection. Prior “natural immunity” accelerates and strengthens the response; its absence mainly increases the chance of a more symptomatic first infection, not automatic high lethality.
- Virulence is a property of the virus–host interaction, not a binary. Many novel viruses (or novel strains) produce mostly mild or moderate disease in healthy people. High recovery rates are the default outcome when the pathogen does not systematically destroy vital organs or trigger uncontrollable cytokine storms in most hosts. Extremely high case-fatality rates (Ebola-range, untreated historical smallpox in naïve populations, etc.) are the exception, not the rule.
- Infection fatality rate (IFR) is heavily age- and comorbidity-dependent. Even with zero prior immunity, IFR is typically orders of magnitude lower in children and healthy working-age adults than in the frail elderly or those with severe underlying conditions. A population-level recovery rate near 98% is therefore statistically expected if the virus behaves like many observed respiratory pathogens and the age structure is not extremely skewed toward the highest-risk groups.
What Actually Moves the Needle
- Supportive medical care (oxygen, fluids, secondary-infection management, anticoagulation where indicated, etc.) reduces deaths among the minority who progress to severe disease. This does not require sterilizing immunity or a specific antiviral.
- Isolation or shielding of the highest-risk groups lowers the observed population fatality rate without changing individual recovery biology.
- Once a substantial fraction of the population has recovered, population-level immunity rises and subsequent waves become less lethal on average (both because of immunity and because selection often favors less-virulent transmission).
High Recovery Rates Novel Viruses | Shared Grok Conversation
How does a society attain a 98% recovery rate from a novel virus that has no natural immunity?
Good post.
Bear in mind that the Gain of Function that Fauci and the CCP designed was centered on transmissibility, not lethality. Fauci wanted a bug that moved fast and infected as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.
He and his CCP partners did nothing to make the underlying Corona virus more deadly. Covid never was particularly deadly. Medical professionals unfortunately exasperated the situation through the heavy use of intubation, which was exactly the wrong thing to do and very often led to death, when the patient would have otherwise recovered.
No blame falls on the medical establishment, they simply had never dealt with this virus. Sadly, science is very often simply learning from our mistakes.
That's all it's ever been, AFAIK.
Fauci should be harassed for the rest of his miserable existence. Hounded. Pursued. Relentlessly.
Alright, forget encouraged, although I do recall Trump saying it was no worse than the common cold, let say remaining noncommittal
And given the horror scenes coming out of the first months of Covid, ER’s overcrowded, mass graves, etc., hard to believe that doing little while waiting to see if a natural immunity occurred would have been the wisest course of action
So it was the pardon that established the 5th Amendment that
Do you ever THINK before you post?