I Can Explain

at

This morning.

Morning Joe on MSNBC.

Dr Anthony Fauci addresses concerns raised by the publication of his emails that showed leading virus experts warned him COVID-19 may have been created in a lab while he publicly played such claims down.

He wants everyone to “keep an open mind’ but his money is still on the bats.

Meanwhile….

Last night.

Via Deadline:

Amazon and Barnes & Noble have apparently taken down a new book by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical advisor to the president.

Fauci’s 80-page book, Expect the Unexpected: Ten Lessons on Truth, Service, and the Way Forward, is expected to be released by National Geographic Books on November 2.

National Geographic Books confirmed the removal to DailyMail.com, which reported that the book sale had been posted accidentally and prematurely.

Dr. Anthony Fauci Book Scrubbed From Amazon, Barnes & Noble After Premature Posts (Deadline)

Meanwhile..

“The enemy is the virus, the enemy is not the public health people who are trying to contain the virus.”

Dr Anthony Fauci to Ryan Tubridy on the Late Late Show, September 2020.

Good times.

Meanwhile…

*fist bump*

Yesterday: Dear Tony

Sponsored Link

Related posts:

Dear Tony

27 thoughts on “I Can Explain”

  5. jonsmoke

    “I know stuff I can’t even post on Twitter”………good grief…as Charlie Brown would say!

    1. Nigel

      Or, and stop me if this is overly convoluted, the actual non-illusory truth is the origin of the virus has not been discovered yet and everything else is arguing over speculation and theories.

      1. f_lawless

        I’ll stop you because you’ve gone off on a tangent. The crux of Cook’s post isn’t about establishing the origin of the virus. It’s about recognising the ways in which “elites wield their narrative power over us” as he puts it. We can look back and observe how the political, media and scientific establishments came together to impose the narrative of Covid’s zoonotic origin as the only acceptable theory while for over a year labeling any consideration of the lab origin theory as fringe conspiracy despite it being just as valid a theory if not more so. Cook warns us that this narrative management is still very much going on rather than an honest attempt to establish the truth.

        1. f_lawless

          Interesting sometimes to look back over old threads (for me at least) –
          From April 2020: I linked to an article titled “Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Discovered HIV Says Coronavirus Was Created In Laboratory” (https://www.broadsheet.ie/2020/04/27/tuesdays-papers-30/#comment-2190970 ) to which ReproBertie replied “How many times must that myth be debunked?”. And when challenged on his dismissive stance by GiggidyGoo, he responded ” the weight of scientific opinion backs mine”.

          1. Cian

            It was a myth then, and is a myth now. There is no evidence that the virus was created in a lab.

            A “lab leak” is not synonymous with a “virus created in a lab”.

          2. f_lawless

            It’s not a myth. It’s a well-grounded theory.

            “There is no evidence that the virus was created in a lab”.
            There’s plenty of compelling circumstantial evidence the virus was modified in a lab. There certainly won’t be any definitive evidence available while all access is denied to the gain-of-function research that was being carried out on bat coronaviruses

            Another theory is that of natural emergence. It’s a theory because no evidence has ever been produced.

            https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038

            “What became clear was that the Chinese had no evidence to offer the (WHO’s Feb 21) commission in support of the natural emergence theory.

            This was surprising because both the SARS1 and MERS viruses had left copious traces in the environment. The intermediary host species of SARS1 was identified within four months of the epidemic’s outbreak, and the host of MERS within nine months. Yet some 15 months after the SARS2 pandemic began, and a presumably intensive search, Chinese researchers had failed to find either the original bat population, or the intermediate species to which SARS2 might have jumped, or any serological evidence that any Chinese population, including that of Wuhan, had ever been exposed to the virus prior to December 2019. Natural emergence remained a conjecture which, however plausible to begin with, had gained not a shred of supporting evidence in over a year.”

          3. Nigel

            Look, if you want to think the created-in-a-lab theory is plausible, fine, but kindly stop attributing the failure of others to be persuaded absent more compelling evidence as proof of shadowy elites shaping our opinons.

        2. f_lawless

          Interesting sometimes to look back over old threads (for me at least) –
          From April 2020: I linked to an article titled “Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Discovered HIV Says Coronavirus Was Created In Laboratory” (https://www.broadsheet.ie/2020/04/27/tuesdays-papers-30/#comment-2190970 ) to which ReproBertie replied “How many times must that myth be debunked?”. And when challenged on his dismissive stance by GiggidyGoo, he responded ” the weight of scientific opinion backs mine”.

          1. Nigel

            Until it’s proved it’s still a theory, and it has most certainly been mythologised by conspiracy theorists.

          2. f_lawless

            “Until it’s proved it’s still a theory”
            Yes just as the zoonotic origin is still a theory but which is now looking weaker as over a year has passed and still no trace has been found of an intermediary host animal. Contrast that to the lab origin theory which can much more easily explain the various key features of the virus – eg. so specifically adapted to the human lungs, comparatively slow mutation rate, etc

          3. Nigel

            ‘Easily explain’ is a bit like magical thinking if you just attribute various aspects of the virus to human design, when ‘occurred naturally’ is equally, if not more plausible.

          4. f_lawless

            Have you taken the time to seek out and consider in detail the case being made before making your dismissive comment? I get the impression that you haven’t.

            Here’s a good summary – particularly the section half way down the article “Comparing the Rival Scenarios of SARS2 Origin”.
            https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038

            If you can give a reasoned critique of that then I’ll take an interest. Otherwise, I’ll assume you’re just indulging in petty oneupmanship and not really interested in genuine debate.

            And I see you’ve misrepresented me by partially quoting me. “easily explain” has a different meaning to the comparative “can much more easily explain”. The issue at hand is clearly complex and I’m not looking for easy explanations through “magical thinking”. To be frank I think it’s a bit of a habit of yours to misrepresent opposing arguments and those making the arguments

        3. Nigel

          That\s funny, I tend to think that the truth is the important thing, insofar as it can be established, rather than a tangent.

          1. f_lawless

            I think the first step is to try to determine whether those telling you what the truth is can be relied upon

    2. ce

      Did it come from a lab, did it not… sure who cares it’s not even real… or dangerous… or anything… now buy my diet book!

    3. Cian

      I read it. That article is masterful in how a journalist can “wield their narrative power over us”.
      Little or no evidence, just speculation, misdirection and innuendo. He makes a bland statement, then declares that is must be true. Something else he does a lot is presenting a problem as only having one of two options, and then showing that one of those options isn’t viable – so the reader is lead to believe the second option must be true….. but that is build on the (incorrect) premise that there are only two options.

Comments are closed.

Broadsheet.ie