• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Stanford Scientists Gave a Diagnosis of Anthony Fauci's Credibility. You May Want to Sit Down.

R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
A Stanford epidemiologist said Dr. Anthony Fauci's "credibility is entirely shot" after his conflicting advice on face masks throughout the pandemic — which the scientist criticized as "all over the place."
"I think he's been all over the place on masks," Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford, told Fox News host Laura Ingraham on her show, "The Ingham Angle" Saturday.
"There are emails you can find in the treasure trove of emails that have been released where he acknowledged the virus has been aerosolized," he continued.
"Well, the cloth masks people have been recommending, they're not particularly effective against aerosolized viruses.
"I really don't understand his back and forth, and his answer made absolutely no sense."

Stanford Scientists Gave a Diagnosis of Anthony Fauci's Credibility. You May Want to Sit Down.
 
Gold Dragon

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Revmitchell said:
A Stanford epidemiologist said Dr. Anthony Fauci's "credibility is entirely shot" after his conflicting advice on face masks throughout the pandemic — which the scientist criticized as "all over the place."
"I think he's been all over the place on masks," Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine at Stanford, told Fox News host Laura Ingraham on her show, "The Ingham Angle" Saturday.
"There are emails you can find in the treasure trove of emails that have been released where he acknowledged the virus has been aerosolized," he continued.
"Well, the cloth masks people have been recommending, they're not particularly effective against aerosolized viruses.
"I really don't understand his back and forth, and his answer made absolutely no sense."

Stanford Scientists Gave a Diagnosis of Anthony Fauci's Credibility. You May Want to Sit Down.
Click to expand...


You know the response because it has been told to you multiple times how surgical masks do not protect the wearer but others from the wearer. Dr Battacharya knows this too.

It shows the complete lack of ethics for someone like this Dr Battacharya who unsurprisingly is another member of the Hoover Institution. There will be a point where Stanford will need to dissociate from that group if they continue to make such blatantly unethical, medically harmful statements purely for political reasons. It is damaging to their reputation as a respectable university.


When people continually make statements they know to be false to smear another person for political reasons, that is the definition of slander.
 
Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Gold Dragon said:
You know the response because it has been told to you multiple times how surgical masks do not protect the wearer but others from the wearer. Dr Battacharya knows this too.

It shows the complete lack of ethics for someone like this Dr Battacharya who unsurprisingly is another member of the Hoover Institution. There will be a point where Stanford will need to dissociate from that group if they continue to make such blatantly unethical, medically harmful statements purely for political reasons. It is damaging to their reputation as a respectable university.


When people continually make statements they know to be false to smear another person for political reasons, that is the definition of slander.
Click to expand...
You spin a good yarn, but it falls apart on its face.
 
Gold Dragon

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
We will see how long the money from the Hoover Institution will allow them to keep lowering the reputation of Stanford university.

Stanford’s relationship to the Hoover Institution highlights Faculty Senate discussion - Stanford Today

In November, the Faculty Senate voted to condemn the COVID-19–related actions of Hoover senior fellow and then-presidential adviser Scott Atlas. The discussion of Atlas’ actions spurred further discussions of academic freedom and freedom of speech at Stanford.

This is not the first time in the university’s history that the Hoover Institution, founded in 1919 by Stanford alumnus and former President Herbert Hoover, has been subject to debate. Rice said her research suggests there have been about 14 faculty resolutions involving the institution and at least six committees charged with studying it in some way.

The Faculty Senate announced plans to discuss the issue of Stanford’s relationship to Hoover in response to a letter initiated last fall by David Palumbo-Liu, the Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor and professor of comparative literature. The letter, signed by more than 100 faculty members, expressed concerns about COVID-19 statements made by Hoover Institution fellows, including Atlas, suggesting a connection between the statements and what the signers described as the institution’s narrow focus and predetermined point of view.
Click to expand...
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
There is a bit of a strawman here. Masks are meant to prevent the virus from becoming aerosolized (not to protect from aerosolized viruses).
 
Gold Dragon

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Jay Bhattacharya is also the same person in the same interview that revmitchell posted about the same topic a few days ago.

Stanford epidemiologist says Fauci's credibility is 'entirely shot'

Maybe if you post this story 100 times folks will be tricked into thinking there are 100 people who believe this. When the reality is there is one guy in Hoover Institution that is the one who lacks credibility.

He is one of three who wrote the ironically named Great Barrington Declaration which was emphatically denounced by medical groups across the globe (Infectious Disease Society, John Snow Memorandum, American Society of Nephrology)

He is also the senior author of the Santa Clara covid19 serology study that was roundly criticized for design flaws including using a test from China that was later banned from use.

How (Not) to Do an Antibody Survey for SARS-CoV-2

New Covid-19 Antibody Study Results Are In. Are They Right?
 
JonC

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Gold Dragon said:
Jay Bhattacharya is also the same person in the same interview that revmitchell posted about the same topic a few days ago.

Stanford epidemiologist says Fauci's credibility is 'entirely shot'

Maybe if you post this story 100 times folks will be tricked into thinking there are 100 people who believe this. When the reality is there is one guy in Hoover Institution that is the one who lacks credibility.

He is one of three who wrote the ironically named Great Barrington Declaration which was emphatically denounced by medical groups across the globe (Infectious Disease Society, John Snow Memorandum, American Society of Nephrology)

He is also the senior author of the Santa Clara covid19 serology study that was roundly criticized for design flaws including using a test from China that was later banned from use.

How (Not) to Do an Antibody Survey for SARS-CoV-2

New Covid-19 Antibody Study Results Are In. Are They Right?
Click to expand...
People have made up their minds (I have seen people change from anti-vacvine to pro-vaccine but only after contracting COVID...exprence seems to speak louder than opinion).

The issue is these anti-vaccine folks reach to find any support -even support that are contradictions (like trying to link vaccines to autism, to experiments with the common cold, and then to gene therapy).

COVID and COVID vaccines were political tools, now the issue has its own politics (science has been tossed out the window).

The article itself is proof. For over a year masks were said to help prevent the spread of the virus by preventing the contagen from becoming airborne (preventing it from becoming aerosolized) when emitted in large droplets from an infected person. But look at the article. It discredits the science by stating cloth masks do not protect against the aerosolized virus (it creates a false, or strawman, argument).

I'm all for exploring the virus from all sides. But what we have here is nothing but propaganda (and conspiracy theory).
 
Gold Dragon

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
JonC said:
COVID and COVID vaccines were political tools, now the issue has its own politics (science has been tossed out the window).

The article itself is proof. For over a year masks were said to help prevent the spread of the virus by preventing the contagen from becoming airborne (preventing it from becoming aerosolized) when emitted in large droplets from an infected person. But look at the article. It discredits the science by stating cloth masks do not protect against the aerosolized virus (it creates a false, or strawman, argument).

I'm all for exploring the virus from all sides. But what we have here is nothing but propaganda (and conspiracy theory).
Click to expand...

Those tactics used and science being tossed out the window are nothing new. I've been confronting those tactics from the same news sources and the same posters on here for over 15 years.
 
Gold Dragon

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Reynolds said:
Look at the 180 done by one of the major scientists your theory relies on.
Click to expand...
Making the right decisions based on evidence requires knowing the science, having the data and applying it at the right time. Fauci never did a 180 on anything.

When it was right to advise against masks because very few people were infected and hospitals were about to run out of PPE he did so. Because surgical masks are not designed to protect the wearer but to protect everyone else from the wearer. So they would have been wasting a valuable resource if it was recommended for hundreds of millions of healthy people to hoard masks back in March 8, 2020.

When the mask shortage was no longer a problem and there were many folks infected, the CDC and Fauci made the decision based on evidence and data to change the recommendation to the right one at that time which was to recommend masking for everyone so that presymptomatic spread of covid19 (while they were asymptomatic) could be minimized and lives saved.

People who don't care about science or data or making good decisions that will help others are unable to make those kinds of decisions at the right time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top