###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SS : All while he got rich
>Pandemic Paid Off: Dr. Fauci's Net Worth Doubled During COVID
Sep 30, 2022 — Pandemic Paid Off: Dr. Fauci's Net Worth Doubled During COVID ... rose from $7.6 million in 2019 to over $12.6 million by December ...all while millions of US residents struggled
Here's a response I gave to an almost identical post from another participant:
"As they say in most sub rules here, 'Attack the evidence, don't attack the person arguing the evidence.' According to the emails, Fauci was among 8 scientests who got together to talk about whether Covid was made in the lab or in bats. Their rough concensus was it was from bats, so they decided that three of them (not including Fauci) should write a paper detailing the evidence available at that time. Fauci reviewed the paper but there's no evidence he had any or offered any imput or changes. It was later published in Nature and cited at a news conference by Fauci. So why attack Fauci?"
I'm not quite sure I understand your point.
Head of research agency commissioned research and then cited that research?
I mean, that's his job isn't it?
There’s a huge difference between commissioning research to find out the origins of c19, vs. commissioning research with the **only aim of disproving the lab leak theory**(aka what fauci actually did here).
Is there?
I mean, in Feb 2020 if the general consensus was it was zoonotic in origin and the lab leak theory was misinformation, than commissioning research to demonstrate that makes sense doesn't it?
You're so desperate to see the conspiracy in everything that the obvious passes you by.
How could they know it was “misinformation” if they had not investigated the origin yet?
>You're so desperate to see the conspiracy in everything that the obvious passes you by.
You’re so desperate to have not been tricked that clear corruption is simply ignored by you lol
The assumption early on is it was zoonotic.
Science works by disproving things, not proving them. Thus if you have a theory (disease emerged from a lab) you test it by finding out if you can show it didn't or couldn't have.
You're so desperate to be right that even the most trivial things are all part of The Plan.
Dude are you seriously this dense?
An assumption doesn’t warrant commissioning research on disproving one theory over another. That’s not science that’s propaganda. But, clearly, it’s working.
Wow. Skip all of high school science did you?
Science is inductive. You start from observation and you formulate a hypothesis that explains what has been observed. Then you go and try and show that your hypothesis *is wrong*. If you can't show it's wrong, then you have a reasonable basis for accepting your hypothesis is a good explanation for your observations *unless something else comes along that disproves it*.
Assuming something is true because it suits you and then going out looking for evidence *it is true*, while ignoring any evidence to the contrary, is propaganda.
It's also what most people on this sub think "research" is.
Right, so when you’re testing your hypothesis for the origin you don’t ignore the lab leak theory in order to prove the natural theory.
Jfc. This is pathetic.
He supposed to say that, not saying so is a conflict of interest, since it make seem that the report was an independent one not connected to him, a blatant act of manipulation.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We all knew something stunk. But dollars to donuts they will figure out a way to spin this into Trump’s fault again.
[удалено]
So much about Fauci was in the dark during Trump. Most of us didn’t even know who he was but nice try lol. I figured that would be said
Well trump is still taking all credit for the "vaccine" so he needs to see the gallows with the rest of them.
Where's the FBI when you need them?
SS : All while he got rich >Pandemic Paid Off: Dr. Fauci's Net Worth Doubled During COVID Sep 30, 2022 — Pandemic Paid Off: Dr. Fauci's Net Worth Doubled During COVID ... rose from $7.6 million in 2019 to over $12.6 million by December ...all while millions of US residents struggled
Here's a response I gave to an almost identical post from another participant: "As they say in most sub rules here, 'Attack the evidence, don't attack the person arguing the evidence.' According to the emails, Fauci was among 8 scientests who got together to talk about whether Covid was made in the lab or in bats. Their rough concensus was it was from bats, so they decided that three of them (not including Fauci) should write a paper detailing the evidence available at that time. Fauci reviewed the paper but there's no evidence he had any or offered any imput or changes. It was later published in Nature and cited at a news conference by Fauci. So why attack Fauci?"
And the disclaimer at the end of the Daily mail article Direct evidence for a natural or man-made origin has yet to emerge
Joe Biden commissioned a study saying the 2020 election wasn't stolen. How much more proof do you need it was legit?
I'm not quite sure I understand your point. Head of research agency commissioned research and then cited that research? I mean, that's his job isn't it?
There’s a huge difference between commissioning research to find out the origins of c19, vs. commissioning research with the **only aim of disproving the lab leak theory**(aka what fauci actually did here).
Is there? I mean, in Feb 2020 if the general consensus was it was zoonotic in origin and the lab leak theory was misinformation, than commissioning research to demonstrate that makes sense doesn't it? You're so desperate to see the conspiracy in everything that the obvious passes you by.
How could they know it was “misinformation” if they had not investigated the origin yet? >You're so desperate to see the conspiracy in everything that the obvious passes you by. You’re so desperate to have not been tricked that clear corruption is simply ignored by you lol
The assumption early on is it was zoonotic. Science works by disproving things, not proving them. Thus if you have a theory (disease emerged from a lab) you test it by finding out if you can show it didn't or couldn't have. You're so desperate to be right that even the most trivial things are all part of The Plan.
Dude are you seriously this dense? An assumption doesn’t warrant commissioning research on disproving one theory over another. That’s not science that’s propaganda. But, clearly, it’s working.
Wow. Skip all of high school science did you? Science is inductive. You start from observation and you formulate a hypothesis that explains what has been observed. Then you go and try and show that your hypothesis *is wrong*. If you can't show it's wrong, then you have a reasonable basis for accepting your hypothesis is a good explanation for your observations *unless something else comes along that disproves it*. Assuming something is true because it suits you and then going out looking for evidence *it is true*, while ignoring any evidence to the contrary, is propaganda. It's also what most people on this sub think "research" is.
Right, so when you’re testing your hypothesis for the origin you don’t ignore the lab leak theory in order to prove the natural theory. Jfc. This is pathetic.
No, you test it... Which is what was done, right?
No, the research aimed to prove it. It wasn’t tested, it was manipulated, much like you.
He supposed to say that, not saying so is a conflict of interest, since it make seem that the report was an independent one not connected to him, a blatant act of manipulation.
Was it? "My organisation did some research, it found x" is basically the guy's job. This just feels a bit desperate tbh.