Biden Joins the All-Stars of Constitutional Contempt

 

"What the New York Times calls a 'novel use of a law on workplace safety' is an invented power that violates the letter and spirit of Article II’s limits ...But as has been the case for much of Washington's decade-long journey into constitutional contempt, this one will end up as pure partisan applesauce." - The Dispatch

Related:

6096 reads

There are 63 Comments

AndyE's picture

JD Miller wrote:
Based on VAERS data you have about a 1 in 12,000 chance of dying from the Covid 19 vaccine. (there is actually a greater chance of dying of second hand smoke - 1 in 8,000-, so I do understand why some will chose to take the vaccine- I also understand why many will not since there is at least some risk).
I'm not sure where you got your information here, but this is a great example of the type of misinformation that is out there.  This 1 in 12,000 number, based on VAERS data, is completely and absolutely false.  Any site that is using VAERS data like this is either completely uninformed about what the VAERS database is all about or is intentionally trying to mislead people.  Per the VAERS site itself, the data is completely unverified and thus NO conclusions can be drawn regarding a vaccine's safety from this data.  "The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database contains information on unverified reports of adverse events (illnesses, health problems and/or symptoms) following immunization with US-licensed vaccines. Reports are accepted from anyone and can be submitted electronically at www.vaers.hhs.gov."    If you are trying to find verified adverse reactions to the vaccine, you have to look somewhere else.  I personally am not aware of a single death that has been verified as caused by the vaccine.  I've seen some claims, but I haven't seen any actually verified by a medical examiner's report, for example.  There may be some, but given the millions of vaccines administered across the globe, we know that the chance of any serious adverse reaction is very very low, and death? That would be vanishingly small, if it is not actually zero.

 

 

 

 

JD Miller's picture

I went back and searched for more information on false Vaers reports and found an article where a whistle blower was claiming that the numbers should be something like 45K.  That was not the number I was using.  I was using the current number of over 14,000 vaccine deaths reported this year to Vaers.  Most years do not even reach 400 reported deaths from what I was reading.  It should also be noted that these deaths are not attributed to any particular vaccine, so that does present a challenge, but it is worth noting that the reported cases took a substantial jump this year.  The figure I shared was based on the assumption that the jump in reported deaths were a direct correlation to the new vaccines.  Such assumptions may not be unreasonable, but are not definitive either.  

One of the problems I just found out about as I was researching this further is that anyone can make a report to Vaers.  Although it is run by the government, there are concerns about "stuffing of the ballot box" so to speak.  Still there are threats of fines and prison for false reporting.  I would hope that anyone who falsely reports would be prosecuted.  I do not want to assume that just because no one has been arrested this year that there has been no false reporting.  

Thus the Vaers numbers should be taken with at least some degree of caution.  On the other hand, Andy's hypothesis of near zero should be discounted as well.  We personally know of one young man who passed away after getting the vaccine.  We also have a lady in our church who worked in a nursing home and watched multiple people die after getting the Covid vaccine.  Sure these are personal examples and not peer reviewed studies, but when it is people you know, it does have an impact on how you view things- especially when you have family members that have been warned by medical professionals and even the CDC not to take the vaccine.

AndyE's picture

JD Miller wrote:
We personally know of one young man who passed away after getting the vaccine.  We also have a lady in our church who worked in a nursing home and watched multiple people die after getting the Covid vaccine.  Sure these are personal examples and not peer reviewed studies, but when it is people you know, it does have an impact on how you view things- especially when you have family members that have been warned by medical professionals and even the CDC not to take the vaccine.

These are the types of anecdotal reports I have heard as well.  The problem is that dying after getting the vaccine is not the same as dying BECAUSE you got the vaccine.  Here in Atlanta, Hank Aaron famously died right after getting the vaccine, and many anti-vax sites picked up on that and promoted it as an example of the vaccine killing someone.  The Fulton County medical examiner, though, reported that he died of natural causes, not related to the vaccine or covid.  

I’m not sure people understand how seriously the CDC and others in public health are responding to these reports of adverse reactions to the vaccine.  Here is one report from the CDC regarding rare serious adverse events reported after COVID-19 vaccination, including Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after Janssen COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis after mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) COVID-19 vaccination.  It is clear that they are following up, looking at the data carefully, and making informed public health recommendations. 

Remember the abundance of caution that was taken with the J&J vaccine – they put a hold on it while they followed up on the reports of adverse reactions.  They held it even though it was probably not in the best interest of reducing vaccine hesitancy.  Read that report. They are doing this sort of thing weekly. It's too bad that the face of our Covid response has been politicalized, because at the heart of it are hundreds and thousands of anonymous hard working Americans giving their professional lives to defeat this virus and care for their fellow citizens.

T Howard's picture

RajeshG wrote:

A friend shared this on Facebook. You will have to decide for yourself whether what he says commends itself to you. 

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-thirty-tyrants

So, Democrats (and the wealthy elite) are in cahoots with China to subvert democracy and take over America, and they are using COVID to do it? Got it.

This weekend, I just had a friend die from complications due to COVID. He was a missionary to Honduras and leaves behind a wife and three children. He decided to not get a vaccine. That decision cost him his life.

But, we can continue to make this all about the wealthy elite, democrats, and the "dangers" of the vaccines.

dgszweda's picture

JD Miller wrote:

Thus the Vaers numbers should be taken with at least some degree of caution.  On the other hand, Andy's hypothesis of near zero should be discounted as well.  We personally know of one young man who passed away after getting the vaccine.  We also have a lady in our church who worked in a nursing home and watched multiple people die after getting the Covid vaccine.  Sure these are personal examples and not peer reviewed studies, but when it is people you know, it does have an impact on how you view things- especially when you have family members that have been warned by medical professionals and even the CDC not to take the vaccine.

The VAERS numbers should be taken with a huge degree of caution and absolutely no causality should be assumed by anyone just reading the data.  The purpose of VAERS is to enhance the safety of drugs.  It is used to observe what are called signals.  The benefit of VAERS is that it provides significantly more data to assess the safety of the drugs.  The drawback is that because it is open, practically everyone who is looking at it doesn't what the data means and thus it drives misinformation.  The VAERS data is used with significantly more robust data that is also publicly available in some cases and not available in others.  Drug Companies, FDA and the CDC take drug safety extremely seriously.  When I worked at Solvay Pharmaceuticals, we had a couple of hundred in our pharmacovigilance department.  At Abbott it numbers in the thousands.  These scientists and statisticians look at the data every day.  In fact, it is their only job, and work with the similiar teams in the FDA and CDC to assess the safety.  In fact, they are under law to do this.

As of this moment there are no deaths attributed to the COVID vaccine.  You cannot look at the rise of cases in VAERS to indicate anything and you cannot highlight that someone was given a vaccine, died and therefore the vaccine was the cause.  With such a broad distribution as this vaccine (almost 350M shots in a matter of months) and the natural death rate of over 8,000 a day, people are going to die after getting the shot, taking a shower, eating breakfast, walking their dog.....

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Helpful podcast at The Dispatch: https://advisoryopinions.thedispatch.com/p/future-of-bidens-vaccine-mandate

Q&A format on ...

  • Constitutional right to not take a vaccine?  (1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts) 
  • Federal gov authority under commerce clause of the Constitution
  • The authority of OSHA
  • The authority/legality of Emergency Temporary Standard (an OSHA thing)

The thing is a bit more complex than I initially thought. I still lean toward this ought to be Congress not the executive.

On the general rights question, one could certainly make the argument that if the 14th amendment can provide a right privacy that extends so far as to allow termination of pregnancy, it ought to go far enough to protect a right to not be vaccinated. But the weakness of that argument is that if abortion rights are an abuse of the amendment, so would non-vaccination rights.

But the commerce clause exists so... for better or worse, there it is.

I didn't get far enough into the podcast to catch the OSHA and ETS aspect.

This much is clear: it's not executive overreach for a pres. to order OSHA to make a rule. But it might be beyond OSHA's authority to make the rule it ends up making, and OSHA is still executive branch... hence, still "executive overreach." But we don't have the rule yet, so it's a bit premature, but only a bit. Presumably, they're going to try to fufill the President's parameters, so those already calling it overreach are not wildly speculating.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Bert Perry's picture

I think a great part of the confusion about VAERS is by design--we might say VAERS collects correlations, and another group determines, rightly or wrongly, causation.  The Vaccine compensation program is also intentionally "easy" so that we get people who've lost loved ones (or had them hurt) after vaccination don't clog up the courts and torment vaccine makers.  Hence it tends to produce gaudy numbers of how awful vaccines can be, when we know logically that actual causation must necessarily be lower than the VAERS numbers.  (you can't cause something that never happened)

One other thing that I think really hurts public health authorities regarding vaccines is that they've allowed the image to come out as if a vaccine makes one "bulletproof" against a particular pathogen.  The result is that when inevitable cases arise where the vaccinated get sick (like my wife's OB nurse), the public thinks "must be those vaccines don't work" rather than "this is an anecdote, let's see what the statistical data say."  It also doesn't help that the Chinese government COVID vaccine is marginal at best in this regard.

(even apart from the public's difficulties with statistics)

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dgszweda's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

One other thing that I think really hurts public health authorities regarding vaccines is that they've allowed the image to come out as if a vaccine makes one "bulletproof" against a particular pathogen.  The result is that when inevitable cases arise where the vaccinated get sick (like my wife's OB nurse), the public thinks "must be those vaccines don't work"

Just to reclarify, VAERS is used to detect signals.  Nothing more, nothing less.  You cannot derive anything else from the data as it sits.  You cannot statistically identify anything in regards to causes, likelihood, effects......

I have heard your comment above across a lot of areas.  "vaccine prevents the disease".  Do you have any links to this?  I am generally curious as to this.  I don't know anyone who is versed in vaccines who believes that.  There are definitely news outlets that probably portrayed that because they probably don't know better.  But I have heard your comment from lots of people around me, stating "Since Suzy got the vaccine and got sick, the vaccine must not work, so therefore why should I take it".  I have had a hard time trying to find where the idea that taking a vaccine doesn't make one sick originated from.

dgszweda's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

The thing is a bit more complex than I initially thought. I still lean toward this ought to be Congress not the executive.

What you have seen for a long time is that Congress is unwilling to take on these types of initiatives, and find it easier to give that authority over to the Executive Branch.  And if you study Executive Orders, we have not seen the really egregious ones in our lifetime.

It could be an over reach, the courts will have to decide, but I can guarantee that Biden's team spent a lot of time analyzing this and put in place something they felt comfortable to hold up and that they could win.  Although it is always a bet.  I think where they will be able to pull this off is that they are not mandating a vaccine, they are mandating a safe work environment during a pandemic.  There are clear options for individuals who would choose not to take the vaccine.

Bert Perry's picture

David, I'm not quite sure where ALL of the tendency to see vaccines as making one bulletproof comes from, but two sources of the issue are first of all how effective some of the early ones were against things like polio and smallpox, and second of all the documents that are provided by federal agencies to parents via their pediatricians.  The latter really don't, IMO, speak much to the statistical uncertainties.

We need to remember that those we're trying to persuade are not people who read the links and say "OK, that's a neat way of keeping the proteins in the lymphatic system instead of going directly to the liver", but rather people whose last acquaintance with statistics was in algebra class in high school.   I'd argue the CDC has simplified things to the point of succumbing to an appeal to authority argument--and that really doesn't appeal well to this demographic.   The CDC understands that this demographic is not able to graph a binomial expansion; what they do not remember is that this demographic does play the lottery and go to casinos, and does have some feeling for likelihoods.

It is, again, especially problematic when in this case, there are a number of places where there are things that this demographic DOES understand clearly that don't speak well of the public health establishment.   The low vaccination rates here are, in effect, saying "if you don't speak honestly about the things I do know, I'm not going to trust you about the things I don't."

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

JD Miller's picture

dgszweda wrote:

  I think where they will be able to pull this off is that they are not mandating a vaccine, they are mandating a safe work environment during a pandemic.

It is not unreasonable to expect a safe work environment.  I would consider a 1 in 160,000 chance of getting seriously ill from Covid 19 after being vaccinated very safe.  Especially when there is a 1 in 262 chance of dying on our roadways.  BTW even with the Vaers data the vaccine looks quite safe statistically (that was part of my point.  If only a tenth of the rise in Vaers are from the new vaccine- debatable I know- it would still be in the similar range of safety as the 1 in 160,000 number so I see no reason to pit the vaxed against the unvaxed).  I just do not understand the overreaction our government is taking, nor the overreaction that so many others are taking in bullying the unvaccinated- especially those with real medical issues that even the CDC recognizes.

dgszweda's picture

JD Miller wrote:

I just do not understand the overreaction our government is taking, nor the overreaction that so many others are taking in bullying the unvaccinated- especially those with real medical issues that even the CDC recognizes.

662,000 people have died of COVID.  Millions have been hospitalized, and 100's of thousands continue to be hospitalized.  That hospitalization and subsequent deaths are thought could be reduced by upwards of 84%.  This is largely preventable and the vaccines are extremely safe and for the most part don't cost money.  There is no doubt that this is a public health problem and the government is responsible for health.

If we had a way to reduce abortions by 84%, Christians would be all over it.  The odd thing is that the number of abortions is roughly the number of COVID patients that have died in a given year.  The concern is that the more that do not get vaccinated, the less the vaccination works for those who have it.  People are fine with those who legitimately cannot take the vaccine.  That is the purpose of herd immunity, to protect those that are still vulnerable.

There is divide that is happening in the US.  A divide that maybe 80% to 85% agree with the vaccine and a 10% to 15% that continue to resist based on all types of crazy reasons.  Right or wrong on either side, the majority is starting to put pressure on the minority.  It is easy to say this is Biden or this is the government doing this.  But the majority of people support it and a very large percentage are already vaccinated.  Biden is just a reflection and a representation of what is taking place within the nation.

Many people have not been really impacted by COVID, and that is oftentimes the resisters.  I have seen many resisters change their mind after it impacts them.  I know of families where everyone has died except for a young girl.  I have an employee who is now going to their fifth funeral for a friend who has died of COVID.  My mom has a coworker where both the husband and wife died days apart from COVID.  I have a friend who attends a local church here and 7 members died in less than 2 weeks from COVID.  Pretty sad when the pastor is doing funerals every day for a week at the church for church members.  It is easy to look at statistics that say someone only has a 1 in only X chance of dying from this, but if it is you or your family member the statistic is meaningless.  

We could say that this is an overreach from Biden, or you could say that a large majority of the country is getting tired of the resisters and Biden is just listening to the country or his constituents who elected him to office. 

T Howard's picture

Just read these stats from ABC News (aka Democrat-controlled, deep state media):

COVID-19 live updates: More than 90% of virus hospitalizations in US are unvaccinated

Those vaccinated are more than 70% less likely to require hospitalizations.

For the most part, people who are being hospitalized and who are dying from COVID now are people who chose not to receive one of three free vaccines. These are needless hospitalizations and deaths.

Don't blame your hesitancy to get vaccinated on vaccine safety, religious / moral objections, Andrew Cuomo, Biden's Constitutional contempt, or deep state conspiracies. The blame clearly rests on your obstinate pride. Unless you're immunocompromised, there's no excuse.

Bert Perry's picture

T Howard wrote:

Just read these stats from ABC News (aka Democrat-controlled, deep state media):

COVID-19 live updates: More than 90% of virus hospitalizations in US are unvaccinated

Those vaccinated are more than 70% less likely to require hospitalizations.

For the most part, people who are being hospitalized and who are dying from COVID now are people who chose not to receive one of three free vaccines. These are needless hospitalizations and deaths.

Don't blame your hesitancy to get vaccinated on vaccine safety, religious / moral objections, Andrew Cuomo, Biden's Constitutional contempt, or deep state conspiracies. The blame clearly rests on your obstinate pride. Unless you're immunocompromised, there's no excuse.

Again, the lying behavior of Dr. Fauci and other public health officials has everything to do with why many people are not getting vaccinated.  Everything.  They're the main source for this information, and even the Atlantic is admitting that about half of COVID hospitalizations are really for something else.  Now granted, X + COVID is going to be worse, by and large, than just X, but if public health officials don't speak honestly about the things that vaccine resisters do understand, there is not a chance they're going to believe public health officials on the things they don't understand.

I've gotten the jab myself, despite knowing that I'd gotten some good immunity due to my own bout with the disease, and I really do want people to start taking the testimony that people like David provide seriously.  The ugly reality, though, is that you're never going to get through to your target populations--really the poor of all races--by talking down to them after having mislead them on things they understand.  A good picture (one for which they were pilloried) from SNL is here

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

JD Miller's picture

I gave the wrong number above for the chances of dying on our roadways.  It was supposed to be 1 in 8569 chance of being killed in a crash on our roadways (that included pedestrians).  

dgszweda's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Again, the lying behavior of Dr. Fauci and other public health officials has everything to do with why many people are not getting vaccinated. 

I think we have to be careful when we say "lying".  If we define lying as "making an untrue statement with the intent to deceive".  I think we need to be careful.  If we define lying as "making an untrue statement", it could be a bit closer, but we would still need to be careful.  I am not saying that there aren't liars out there.  But we are taking a once a hundred year pandemic where everyone is 1) trying to get out the best information possible and 2) the information and data is rapidly changing, makes it very difficult over an 18 month period to only produce 100% true statements.  I would argue that it would be an impossible task.

Think of it this way.  You are counseling a young couple at your church who is having marriage problems.  They come to you making certain statements.  As you talk to them you issue them advice.  You counsel them over a year period, but during that year, you begin to pull more information out of the couple.  You may even get information from other family members or maybe individuals within the church.  At the end of the 12 months period, depending on how much new data you get and how different the problems have now been discovered to be as you dig deeper into discussions, you could easily point out comments and advice that you made in the first week as being untrue or false advice.  Maybe the advice could have been severely damaging.  I remember hearing a story of one couple where the pastor told them to stick together and work it out.  It wasn't revealed to him at the time that there was significant physical abuse.  That continued abuse over the course of the 6 month counseling session led one of the partners to kill the other.  Looking back, maybe it wasn't good advice to tell them to stick it out, if a life was in danger.

Again, I am not saying that untruths have not been told.  But I question whether the entire medical community is doing it with the intent to deceive.  I also think that most people don't truly understand science in situations like this, because their exposure to science has been that when I get the milk from the grocery store, 200 years of science and testing has gone into it and I can trust the milk I am grabbing.  There is not a single person on the planet who has lived in or experienced a pandemic like this, nor has one like this impacted a world like this either.  I do totally get and understand people who look at the scientists and question what is going on.  I think many have been two quick to get data and hypothesis out there, that it has resulted in too many retractions, backtrack or changes to what they have said.  I like Dr. Fauci, he has lasted through so many administrations, but he has been way over exposed through this whole pandemic, which has just created problems.

AndyE's picture

JD Miller wrote:

I gave the wrong number above for the chances of dying on our roadways.  It was supposed to be 1 in 8569 chance of being killed in a crash on our roadways (that included pedestrians). 

I think that stat means that if you die this year, you have a 1 in 8569 chance of dying via car crash.  I don't think that number really reflects how risky it is to drive a car. 

Per https://www.iihs.org, there were 33,244 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2019 in which 36,096 deaths occurred. This resulted in 11.0 deaths per 100,000 people and 1.11 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.  Doesn't that sound a lot safer than 1/8569?

We are far off field from the main discussion now, but just thought I try to add some clarification here.  

AndyE's picture

dgszweda wrote:
I think we have to be careful when we say "lying".  If we define lying as "making an untrue statement with the intent to deceive".  I think we need to be careful.  If we define lying as "making an untrue statement", it could be a bit closer, but we would still need to be careful.  I am not saying that there aren't liars out there.  But we are taking a once a hundred year pandemic where everyone is 1) trying to get out the best information possible and 2) the information and data is rapidly changing, makes it very difficult over an 18 month period to only produce 100% true statements.  I would argue that it would be an impossible task.

And this is why "following the science" is a terrible idea when you are trying to do biblical apologetics.  People think science is this static absolutely authoritative source of truth, when it is not.  When you apply that expectation to our current public health crisis, people who follow the science are going to look like they are fluctuating, because they are. 

Then you have the people like Joy Reid of MSNBC who said the vaccine is unsafe and you shouldn't trust it back when Trump was in office, but now says vaccine mandates are good and people should be forced to take it now that Biden is in charge.  Tucker Carlson (who has his own issues with the truth when it comes to the vaccine) had a pretty funny montage of this on his show last night.

 

dgszweda's picture

AndyE wrote:

 

JD Miller wrote:

 

I gave the wrong number above for the chances of dying on our roadways.  It was supposed to be 1 in 8569 chance of being killed in a crash on our roadways (that included pedestrians). 

 

I think that stat means that if you die this year, you have a 1 in 8569 chance of dying via car crash.  I don't think that number really reflects how risky it is to drive a car. 

Per https://www.iihs.org, there were 33,244 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2019 in which 36,096 deaths occurred. This resulted in 11.0 deaths per 100,000 people and 1.11 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.  Doesn't that sound a lot safer than 1/8569?

We are far off field from the main discussion now, but just thought I try to add some clarification here.  

Last night we crossed the threshold that 1 in 500 residents of the US have died of COVID-19.  That is obviously not the same as saying you have a 1 in 500 chance of dying from this disease, but the statistic does provide a sobering number.

dgszweda's picture

AndyE wrote:

Then you have the people like Joy Reid of MSNBC who said the vaccine is unsafe and you shouldn't trust it back when Trump was in office, but now says vaccine mandates are good and people should be forced to take it now that Biden is in charge.  

Yeah we have the same thing with Kamala Harris who said that she wouldn't take the vaccine if it was developed under Trump.  It has been a mess.

JD Miller's picture

The correct way to say it is that in 2020, 1 in 8569 people died in roadway crashes.  I need more salt on that crow.  I might have to start cooking it in cream of chicken soup at this rate.

Bert Perry's picture

David, point well taken, but there is a certain point when we have to consider the question "is it plausible this person does not know better?"  For example, was it plausible in the spring of 2020 when Dr. Fauci, knowing full well that surgeons wear surgical masks for a very good reason, said there was no value in them for the population as a whole?

We might consider it a "white lie", since he appears to have been intended to protect supply of face masks for nurses and such.  But even so, it was false, and Fauci knew it--that's a lie.

Same thing with denying the possibility of a lab leak while he knew the bat in question lived nowhere near Wuhan, but he'd personally funded research into bat virii at WIV.  The case for plausible deniability is just extremely thin in this and a fair number of other areas.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dgszweda's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

David, point well taken, but there is a certain point when we have to consider the question "is it plausible this person does not know better?"  For example, was it plausible in the spring of 2020 when Dr. Fauci, knowing full well that surgeons wear surgical masks for a very good reason, said there was no value in them for the population as a whole?

We might consider it a "white lie", since he appears to have been intended to protect supply of face masks for nurses and such.  But even so, it was false, and Fauci knew it--that's a lie.

Same thing with denying the possibility of a lab leak while he knew the bat in question lived nowhere near Wuhan, but he'd personally funded research into bat virii at WIV.  The case for plausible deniability is just extremely thin in this and a fair number of other areas.

I don't think Fauci intentionally lied with the intent to deceive the public.  First, everything was changing so quickly as to the effectiveness of masks.  The people who are complaining about Fauci lying about this, are screaming at the top of their lungs today that masks don't do anything and we shouldn't have masks mandates.  Their concern is less about whether Fauci was right or wrong, they are just trying to find lies in order to discredit him.  Second, he has a long track records across many administrations of a strong competence in his field and with a long track record of solid performance.  So it wasn't because he was wildly incompetent.  Third, what purpose did he have in deceiving the public.  Back in March, there was so much lack of information and different guidances from CDC, HHS, NIH.... around what was going on.  Can we look back 18 months later and say things should have been done better?  No doubt.  Was he intentionally trying to mislead the public?  I just don't see the evidence.

The Wuhan gain of function is really about Rand Paul trying to find Fauci lying.  I don't think it is conclusive yet around this.  There is significant differences in interpretation of Gain of Function and also differences in "fungible" money given in grants that are distributed through multiple layers.

I give more credence to his decades of solid performance, the immensely impossible task he had working under Trump and once in a lifetime pandemic as contributing to challenges in giving clear information that is timely and doesn't change.  I will 100% agree that there were missteps, I am just not in the camp and don't believe there is enough evidence to show that he was intentionally trying to mislead people.  I still believe he was giving the best guidance based on the information on hand.  I continue to look at the data and am willing to change my position as evidence becomes more solid around the accusations of lying.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

dgszweda wrote:

Their concern is less about whether Fauci was right or wrong, they are just trying to find lies in order to discredit him.  Second, he has a long track records across many administrations of a strong competence in his field and with a long track record of solid performance.

Fauci doesn't need others to discredit him, he has done a great job of doing that to himself.  As you pointed out about the man discussed earlier who did a lot of the early research with mRNA, past work and expertise doesn't make up for wrong or stupid (or untruthful in Fauci's case) things said now.

I realize that many would like this to be all about "the GOP is just trying to discredit Fauci, etc...."  There is certainly plenty of that, but if Fauci were so rock solid, we wouldn't be where we are today with trusting his credibility.

Of course, Fauci's untruthful claims don't have anything to do with how bad or good the vaccines are, but Bert is absolutely right about people's trust level being low due to not only incompetence from our government, but also because of stupid or outright false things they are attempting to pawn off as "THE SCIENCE (TM)."  They should have just made sure that everyone knew that science knowledge changes as things are learned, and that it's not by any means infallible.  Instead, they propped up SCIENCE as some sort of all-knowing god, with themselves as the high priests, and any opposing viewpoints or contrary evidence held up as heresy rather than being examined.

Instead of defending Fauci, our leaders should be attempting to find, disseminate, and defend truth.  Yes, that's a hard job to do well (although there is good reason to suspect that the motives of many of them are not so pure).  Doing the hard job of governing is why they were elected/appointed and paid.

Dave Barnhart

dgszweda's picture

dcbii wrote:

(although there is good reason to suspect that the motives of many of them are not so pure)

What are the hidden motives of many of these individuals?

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

dgszweda wrote:

What are the hidden motives of many of these individuals?

You'll note I said "suspect," not that I knew their motives.

There are plenty of examples of reasons for suspicion, but I'll mention just one that's already been discussed -- multiple comments (including from elected officials) about not taking a "Trump-developed" vaccine, but changing their tune now that Biden is in office.  What is the motivation for that?  It certainly is NOT simply the well-being of the populace.  Such comments destroy their own credibility, and easily lead thinking individuals to suspect less-than-pristine motives, let alone those who already reflexively distrust government.

Again, those comments say nothing about the actual value of the vaccines, but they certainly give one pause when the same people are now spouting about science and the vaccine being necessary.  Who in their right mind would believe anything they said was without ulterior motive after that?  It's a good thing we have other sources to check.

Dave Barnhart

Don Johnson's picture

dgszweda wrote:

I don't think Fauci intentionally lied with the intent to deceive the public. 

I thought he admitted as much. The so-called "bold lie" because they were fearful (supposedly) of not having enough masks available, so he lied about their effectiveness. Then he changed course and said they were effective because he just didn't want to cause a shortage...

Or something like that. I'm not bothering to look it up because I think it is pretty well established that Fauci has played fast and loose with the truth on at least that occasion (and admitted it), but seems to have done so many times during this ordeal.

His own admissions call into question his credibility. In my opinion, the US govt could do with a better and newer spokesman since Fauci has shown himself untrustworthy.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

dgszweda's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

 

dgszweda wrote:

 

I don't think Fauci intentionally lied with the intent to deceive the public. 

 

 

I thought he admitted as much. The so-called "bold lie" because they were fearful (supposedly) of not having enough masks available, so he lied about their effectiveness. Then he changed course and said they were effective because he just didn't want to cause a shortage...

Or something like that. I'm not bothering to look it up because I think it is pretty well established that Fauci has played fast and loose with the truth on at least that occasion (and admitted it), but seems to have done so many times during this ordeal.

His own admissions call into question his credibility. In my opinion, the US govt could do with a better and newer spokesman since Fauci has shown himself untrustworthy.

I think this is a fairly accurate article of the situation.  One of the key reasons I think it is accurate, is that Jacob Sullum is antagonist toward Fauci, which means he is not giving him the benefit of the doubt.  I think it is also accurate because this was written in June of this year when even more information was out around private communications that Fauci had.  Most news fact checking sites are marking the fact that he lied as a false statement.  Jacob ends the article with the statement, "it seems fair to say he was less than completely candid about the reasons for his initial position and the reasons for abandoning it.", which I think is a fair assessment of the situation.  I don't think Fauci was intentionally lying in order to deceive, because he was aligned to the recommendations of not only agencies like the CDC, but also other world agencies.  They had access to the same data if not more data than Fauci had access to.  I don't believe that Fauci had access to unique data that other health agencies in the US or the world had access to.

https://reason.com/2021/06/04/anthony-fauci-may-not-have-lied-about-face...

 

I am 100% in agreement with you that he needed to step back from all of this a while ago.  One of the worse things you can do is to put a scientist in front of the media 24x7x365 over almost 2 years and expect it to go 100% smooth.  I was always a strong proponent that he should have stepped back over a year ago, as I think he was just muddying the waters in many cases.

Don Johnson's picture

dgszweda wrote:
Jacob ends the article with the statement, "it seems fair to say he was less than completely candid about the reasons for his initial position and the reasons for abandoning it.", which I think is a fair assessment of the situation. 

well, I read through the article. If this concluding statement is correct, there is a lie (at least one) in something Fauci said. Where the lie (or lies) is, precisely, is a little hard to tell. "Less than completely candid" is a lie, no matter how you describe it.

At best it is incompetence, at worst it is manipulative (for what reason, I don't know). In any case, Fauci should have been turfed long ago.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Pages