Was Dr. Fauci responsible for the release of Covid virus?

Jake Starkey said:
Such bullshit, Taichiliberal. Your gang just sucks, after all this time.

Your whining, crying, moaning, groaning, and outright lying caused many deaths.
Click to expand...
Notice that Jake can't factually or logically refute or dispute what I presented. He just fuss and fumes like a petulant child.

Case in point, a little historical tidbit Jake was not aware of, but no doubt will immediately says it is of no consequence.
 
AProudLefty said:
There is no evidence that Dr. Anthony Fauci was responsible for the release of the COVID-19 virus. This claim has been investigated by congressional subcommittees and widely dismissed by scientific experts and U.S. intelligence agencies as unfounded.
Key points regarding the origins of COVID-19 and Fauci's involvement:
No Evidence of Responsibility: Democratic staff on the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released a report ahead of Fauci's June 2024 testimony stating that evidence collected found that "Dr. Fauci did not fund research through the EcoHealth Alliance Grant that caused the Covid-19 pandemic" and "Dr. Fauci did not lie about gain of function research in Wuhan China". Fauci himself has called such allegations "simply preposterous".
Origin Theories Remain Inconclusive: U.S. intelligence agencies have produced declassified assessments indicating that both a natural, animal-to-human transmission (zoonotic origin) and a potential laboratory leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology are plausible scenarios, but there is no consensus and no conclusive evidence to definitively prove either theory.
Fauci's Position: Throughout various testimonies and interviews, Fauci has maintained an "open mind" regarding the virus's origins, acknowledging both possibilities while stating that the scientific evidence he has reviewed largely leans toward a natural occurrence.
Nature of Research: Fauci has denied that research his agency funded at the Wuhan lab through the EcoHealth Alliance could have caused the pandemic, stating it was "molecularly impossible" for those specific viruses to be the precursor to SARS-CoV-2.
Political Context: The question of the virus's origin and Fauci's role has been a subject of intense political debate and congressional hearings, with Democrats accusing Republicans of using the subcommittee for "extreme narratives intended to vilify our nation's public health officials". The investigations have, however, also highlighted concerns about record-keeping practices and transparency within the NIH and among some of Fauci's advisors.

This one is for you, @Damocles.
Click to expand...
Of course he was.

Open your eyes and ears.
 
Jake Starkey said:
Did lab testing of the Covid vaccine reveal that it was a truly effective product in treating the disease?
Before human trials, vaccines underwent:

  • in‑vitro (lab) testing
  • animal studies
  • phase 1 safety trials
These showed that the mRNA vaccines produced:

  • high levels of neutralizing antibodies
  • strong T‑cell responses
  • no major safety concerns
This is the basic scientific requirement before any vaccine moves to large human trials.
The large Phase 3 trials (tens of thousands of participants) found:

Pfizer‑BioNTech​

  • 95% efficacy at preventing symptomatic COVID‑19 in the original 2020–2021 trial.

Moderna​

  • 94.1% efficacy at preventing symptomatic COVID‑19.

Johnson & Johnson​

  • 66% efficacy globally at preventing symptomatic disease
  • 85% efficacy at preventing severe disease
These results were published in peer‑reviewed journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA).
Once vaccines rolled out to millions of people, multiple countries tracked outcomes. They found:
  • 90%+ reduction in hospitalization and death
  • Sharp drops in severe disease
  • Lower transmission rates in vaccinated populations
This held true even as variants emerged, though protection against infection decreased over time — which is normal for respiratory viruses.

Protection against severe disease remained strong.
This is an important distinction:
  • Vaccines prevent infection and severe disease.
  • Treatments (like Paxlovid, monoclonal antibodies, steroids) treat active infection.
So the vaccine’s job is prevention, not treatment — and by that standard, the lab and clinical data showed they were highly effective.

Yes — lab testing and clinical trials showed the COVID‑19 vaccines were effective at preventing COVID‑19, especially severe disease. They were never intended to treat active infection, but to prevent it or make it far less dangerous.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned the Chinese Disease vaccines. On the whole, from everything I've read on them, some, possibly even most, did have potential negative side effects. That's not uncommon with vaccines. As far as effectiveness goes, they were pretty hit and miss. The flu vaccine is usually like that too, for example. Doesn't mean you shouldn't get one, but being aware it might not be effective, or you might have side effects should be part of your decision making.

Get one, or don't. It's your choice.

I did eventually get a case of Chinese Disease, shortly after the hoopla died off about it. I've had worse colds.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Notice that Jake can't factually or logically refute or dispute what I presented. He just fuss and fumes like a petulant child.

Case in point, a little historical tidbit Jake was not aware of, but no doubt will immediately says it is of no consequence.
Click to expand...
That has already been done.

For shame.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I never mentioned the Chinese Disease vaccines. On the whole, from everything I've read on them, some, possibly even most, did have potential negative side effects. That's not uncommon with vaccines. As far as effectiveness goes, they were pretty hit and miss. The flu vaccine is usually like that too, for example. Doesn't mean you shouldn't get one, but being aware it might not be effective, or you might have side effects should be part of your decision making.

Get one, or don't. It's your choice.

I did eventually get a case of Chinese Disease, shortly after the hoopla died off about it. I've had worse colds.
Click to expand...
You are talking conspiracy theories, nothing else. The Covid treatment saved millions of lives.
 
Jake Starkey said:
You are talking conspiracy theories, nothing else. The Covid treatment saved millions of lives.
Click to expand...
You're the one tossing out conspiracy theories.

The CDC says you are wrong.

Among adults aged ≥18 years in VISION, 137,543 ED/UC encounters met criteria for inclusion in the analyses, including 10,459 (8%) case-patients and 127,084 (92%) control patients. Effectiveness of a 2024–2025 COVID-19 vaccination against a COVID-19–associated ED/UC visit was 33% (95% CI = 28%–38%) during the first 7–119 days after vaccination, 36% (95% CI = 29%–42%) during the first 7–59 days after vaccination, and 30% (95% CI = 22%–37%) during the 60–119 days after vaccination.

Among adults aged ≥65 years without immunocompromising conditions in VISION, 26,219 hospitalizations met criteria for inclusion in analyses, including 2,248 (9%) case-patients and 23,971 (91%) control patients. VE of a 2024–2025 COVID-19 vaccine dose against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 45% (95% CI = 36%–53%) a median interval of 53 days since receipt of a 2024–2025 COVID-19 vaccine dose. Among adults aged ≥65 years with immunocompromising conditions in VISION, 8,192 hospitalizations met criteria for inclusion in analyses, including 598 (7%) case-patients and 7,594 (93%) control patients. VE was 40% (95% CI = 21%–54%), a median interval of 53 days after receipt of a 2024–2025 COVID-19 vaccination. Among adults aged ≥65 years without immunocompromising conditions in the IVY network, 1,929 met inclusion criteria, including 683 (35%) case-patients and 1,246 (65%) control patients. VE against COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 46% (95% CI = 26%–60%), a median of 60 days after receipt of a 2024–2025 COVID-19 vaccine dose.

www.cdc.gov

Interim Estimates of 2024–2025 COVID-19 ...

This report describes 2024–2025 COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-associated emergency department or urgent care encounters.
www.cdc.gov www.cdc.gov

The New England Journal of Medicine says you are wrong.

Of 17,263 identified references, 511 studies met the inclusion criteria. Covid-19 mRNA vaccines against the XBB.1.5 subvariant had pooled vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization of 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34 to 55; from cohort studies) and 50% (95% CI, 43 to 57; from case–control studies) among adults and 37% (95% CI, 29 to 44) among immunocompromised adults. In a case–control study, vaccines against the KP.2 subvariant showed an effectiveness of 68%


Chinese Disease vaccines are about as effective as annual flu vaccines and generally less than 50% effective.

Take one if you want. Don't take one if you are so inclined. On the whole, they can help, but they are nowhere near some panacea.
 
Jake Starkey said:
That has already been done.

For shame.
Click to expand...
It is a shame how you actually think blowing smoke disproved the FACTS I linked. Hint: it doesn't.

Fauci was a climber and a bit of a con man with Covid as he was with AIDS. He didn't create either. But he did facilitate the false narratives that made a whole lotta people rich at the expense of the people's general welfare.
 
Taichiliberal said:
It is a shame how you actually think blowing smoke disproved the FACTS I linked. Hint: it doesn't.

Fauci was a climber and a bit of a con man with Covid as he was with AIDS. He didn't create either. But he did facilitate the false narratives that made a whole lotta people rich at the expense of the people's general welfare.
Click to expand...
You linked no facts. He was right on Covid, he was right on Aids. He facilitated truthful narrative that saved a whole lotta peoples' lives.
 
Jake Starkey said:
Your posts show nothing. Dr. Fauci was a hero, and those opposed him are enemies of the US and our citizens.
Click to expand...
So you didn't watch the video on Mullis and you either didn't read or you can't reute the article on Fauci. Instead, you babble jingoistic jargon like some blinders wearing cult member.

So I'll give you one more chance; can you logically/factually disprove what Mullis says in the interview or what is covered in the articlr on Fauci? If so, quit stalling an do it. If not. GTFU and admit it. Anything else is just intellectual dishonesty on your part that will land you on the ignore list.
 
Jake Starkey said:
You just did. It is you accusing others of doing what you are doing.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. You have no clue what "gaslighting" is as a fallacy.

Gaslighting-phrase-example-infographic-1200x600.png


I stated you were tossing out "conspiracy theories" like:

Chinese disease vaccines are highly effective. I showed CDC and other medical professional journal published studies showing they have limited effectiveness, often less than 50% effective.

Masks are highly effective. Again, I showed studies that show they are not very effective and largely a waste of time in the way they were being used.

Same with social distancing, and other tripe the Left, in particular, gobbled up and took as gospel.

That isn't "gaslighting." That is a solid rebuttal.
 

Gaslighting (definition)​

Gaslighting is the act of intentionally manipulating someone into questioning their own reality — their memories, perceptions, or judgment — often by denying facts, lying, contradicting evidence, or dismissing the person’s concerns as irrational.

That includes accusing the other person of doing what you are doing. It is also a technique of Narcissism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top