|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Interview withDr FauciIt coincided very much with the rapid escalation of cases in the northeastern part of the country, particularly the New York metropolitan area. I would try to express the gravity of the situation, and the response of the president was always leaning toward, “Well, it’s not that bad, right?” And I would say, “Yes, it is that bad.” It was almost a reflex response, trying to coax you to minimize it. Not saying, “I want you to minimize it,” but, “Oh, really, was it that bad?” And the other thing that made me really concerned was, it was clear that he was getting input from people who were calling him up, I don’t know who, people he knew from business, saying, “Hey, I heard about this drug, isn’t it great?” or, “Boy, this convalescent plasma is really phenomenal.” And I would try to, you know, calmly explain that you find out if something works by doing an appropriate clinical trial; you get the information, you give it a peer review. And he’d say, “Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, this stuff really works.” He would take just as seriously their opinion — based on no data, just anecdote — that something might really be important. It wasn’t just hydroxychloroquine, it was a variety of alternative-medicine-type approaches. It was always, “A guy called me up, a friend of mine from blah, blah, blah.” That’s when my anxiety started to escalate. - Did you have any problems with him in the first three years of his presidency No, he barely knew who I was. The first time I met him was in September 2019, when they asked me to come down to the White House, bring my white coat and stand there as he signed an executive order regarding something about influenza. Then, starting in January, February of 2020, it was an intense involvement going down to the White House very, very frequently. - There was a point last February when things changed. Alex Azar was running the White House Coronavirus Task Force, and then suddenly Mike Pence was, and President Trump was at the podium taking the questions and arguing with reporters. What happened? To be totally honest with you, I don’t know. We were having, you know, the standard kind of scientifically based, public-health-based meetings. Then I started getting anxious that this was not going in the right direction — the anecdotally driven situations, the minimization, the president surrounding himself with people saying things that didn’t make any scientific sense. We would say things like: “This is an outbreak. Infectious diseases run their own course unless one does something to intervene.” And then he would get up and start talking about, “It’s going to go away, it’s magical, it’s going to disappear.” That’s when it became clear to me: I’m not going to proactively go out and volunteer my contradiction of what the president said. But he would say something that clearly was not correct, and then a reporter would say, “Well, let’s hear from Dr. Fauci.” I would have to get up and say, “No, I’m sorry, I do not think that is the case.” It isn’t like I took any pleasure in contradicting the president of the United States. I have a great deal of respect for the office. But I made a decision that I just had to. Otherwise I would be compromising my own integrity, and be giving a false message to the world. If I didn’t speak up, it would be almost tacit approval that what he was saying was OK. That’s when I started to get into some trouble. The people around him, his inner circle, were quite upset that I would dare publicly contradict the president. That’s when we started getting into things I felt were unfortunate and somewhat nefarious — namely, allowing Peter Navarro to write an editorial in USA Today saying I’m wrong on most of the things I say. Or to have the White House press office send out a detailed list of things I said that turned out to be not true — all of which were nonsense because they were all true. The very press office that was making decisions as to whether I can go on a TV show or talk to you. It wasn’t that. After a TV interview or a story in a major newspaper, someone senior, like Mark Meadows, would call me up expressing concern that I was going out of my way to contradict the president. - Did Peter Navarro or Dr. Scott Atlas, another adviser to the president, or anybody else confront you directly? Oh, no. Peter Navarro, for some strange reason, had a thing about me. He came in one day, and he had a whole list of reprints that were completely nonsense. And he says, “How dare you say that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work? I have 25 papers here that says it works!” That’s when we had a little bit of sharp words in the Situation Room. After that, I said I didn’t want to be bothered with him. I don’t like to be confronting people. After he wrote that editorial, the papers wanted me to lash back at him. I didn’t want to do that. - Did Mr. Trump himself ever yell at you or say, “What are you doing contradicting me?” There were a couple of times where I would make a statement that was a pessimistic viewpoint about what direction we were going, and the president would call me up and say, “Hey, why aren’t you more positive? You’ve got to take a positive attitude. Why are you so negativistic? Be more positive.” - Did he say why? People were dying. Someone he knew died early on. No. I didn’t get into the whys or anything. He would get on the phone and express disappointment in me that I was not being more positive. He didn’t say, “This is killing the stock market” or “This is killing my chances for re-election”? No, he didn’t do that kind of specificity. He just expressed disappointment. - When did the death threats start? Wow. Many, many months ago. In the spring. Hold on — just bear with me. [He consults someone who answers “March 28.”] So there — you got it from the head of my Secret Service detail. That’s when I got protection, so maybe two weeks prior to that. It was the harassment of my wife, and particularly my children, that upset me more than anything else. They knew where my kids work, where they live. The threats would come directly to my children’s phones, directly to my children’s homes. How the hell did whoever these a**holes were get that information? And there was chatter on the internet, people talking to each other, threatening, saying, “Hey, we got to get rid of this guy. What are we going to do about him? He’s hurting the president’s chances.” You know, that kind of right-wing craziness. - Were you ever shot at or confronted? No, but one day I got a letter in the mail, I opened it up and a puff of powder came all over my face and my chest. That was very, very disturbing to me and my wife because it was in my office. So I just looked at it all over me and said, “What do I do?” The security detail was there, and they’re very experienced in that. They said, “Don’t move, stay in the room.” And they got the hazmat people. So they came, they sprayed me down and all that. - Did they test the powder? Yeah. It was a benign nothing. But it was frightening. My wife and my children were more disturbed than I was. I looked at it somewhat fatalistically. It had to be one of three things: A hoax. Or anthrax, which meant I’d have to go on Cipro for a month. Or if it was ricin, I was dead, so bye-bye. - Was Mr. Trump told? I have no idea. - Did you alert anyone around him? As in, “Hey, you’re going to get me killed?” No, no. I didn’t. Who was I going to tell? What good would it be to tell anyone? Also, it was under F.B.I. investigation, and they don’t like you to talk about it. - Did anyone close to Mr. Trump ever say, “We were wrong, you were right”? No. No. - Even after he got so sick that he had to be flown to Walter Reed hospital? No. - Did the president ever ask you for medical advice? No. When he was in Walter Reed and he was getting monoclonal antibodies, he said, “Tony, this really just made a big difference. I feel much, much better. This is really good stuff.” I didn’t want to burst his bubble, but I said, “Well, no, this is an N equals 1. You may have been starting to feel better anyway.” [In scientific literature, an experiment with just one subject is described as “n = 1.”] And he said, “Oh, no, no no, absolutely not. This stuff is really good. It just completely turned me around.” So I figured the better part of valor would be not to argue with him. - Was nobody else advising him: “Hey, maybe we ought to pay attention to the science?” Jared Kushner? Mike Pence? - There could have been, behind closed doors, but to my knowledge there was not. There was one time — we were in the Oval Office sitting in the chairs around the Resolute Desk. We had this interesting relationship, kind of a New York City camaraderie thing where we kind of liked each other in the sense of “Hey, two guys from New York.” And he was holding forth on some particular intervention, and saying something that clearly was not based on any data or evidence. There were a bunch of people there, and he turned to me and said, “Well, Tony, what do you think?” And I said, you know, I think that’s not true at all because I don’t see any evidence to make you think that that’s the case. And he said, “Oh, well,” and then went on to something else. Then I heard through the grapevine that there were people in the White House who got really surprised, if not offended, that I would dare contradict what the president said in front of everybody. And I was, “Well, he asked me my opinion. What do you want me to say?” - But no confrontation? No, he was fine. To his credit, he didn’t get upset at all. - Later he joked with crowds about firing you. How did that make you feel? I thought he wasn’t going to do it. I think that’s the way he is. People said, “Oh, weren’t you horrified that the next day you were going to get a call?” I didn’t think at all that he was going to fire me. It was just, you know, Donald Trump being Donald Trump. - But then he brought in Scott Atlas and in effect made him your replacement. Well, Scott Atlas was less a replacement for me than a pushing out of Debbie Birx. My day job is that I’m the director of N.I.A.I.D. I would go to the White House, sometimes every day during the intense period, but I was considered an outside person. This is a subtlety that people need to understand. I tried to approach him and say, “Let’s sit down and talk because we obviously have some differences.” His attitude was that he intensively reviews the literature, we may have differences, but he thinks he’s correct. I thought, “OK, fine, I’m not going to invest a lot of time trying to convert this person,” and I just went my own way. But Debbie Birx had to live with this person in the White House every day, so it was much more of a painful situation for her. - Did you ever think about quitting? Never. Never. Nope. - Weren’t you concerned that you would be blamed for the failures if you didn’t resign? When people just see you standing up there, they sometimes think you’re being complicit in the distortions emanating from the stage. But I felt that if I stepped down, that would leave a void. Someone’s got to not be afraid to speak out the truth. They would try to play down real problems and have a little happy talk about how things are OK. And I would always say, “Wait a minute, hold it folks, this is serious business.” So there was a joke — a friendly joke, you know — that I was the skunk at the picnic. - Did your wife ever suggest that you quit? She brought up that I might want to consider it. She’s an incredibly wise person, knows me better than anybody else in the world, obviously. She said, “Do you want to have a conversation to balance the pros and the cons of what it would accomplish?” And after a conversation, she ultimately agreed with me. I always felt that if I did walk away, the skunk at the picnic would no longer be at the picnic. Even if I wasn’t very effective in changing everybody’s minds, the idea that they knew that nonsense could not be spouted without my pushing back on it, I felt was important. I think in the big picture, I felt it would be better for the country and better for the cause for me to stay, as opposed to walk away. - What are you going to do now? Four more years with President Biden? I don’t know. Right now I’m not thinking about how many more years. You know, my whole life professionally has been fighting pandemics, from the very early years of H.I.V., influenza, Ebola, Zika or what have you. This is what I do. We are living through a historic pandemic, the likes of which we haven’t seen in 102 years. I think what I bring to the table is something that’s very much value-added. I want to keep doing it until I see us crushing this outbreak, so that people can get back to normality. And even after then, I’ve left some unfinished business. There’s still H.I.V., to which I’ve devoted the overwhelming proportion of my professional life. I want to continue the work that we’re doing on influenza, on H.I.V., on malaria and tuberculosis. As I said, this is what I do. - Do you think Donald Trump cost the country tens or hundreds of thousands of lives? I can’t comment on that. People always ask that and … making the direct connection that way, it becomes very damning. I just want to stay away from that. Sorry. From www.nytimes.com |
||
|
Great interview |
||
|
pawntificator 26-Jan-21, 07:20 |
And now he is calling for people to wear TWO masks. media.patriots.win |
||
|
Pawn It's all very well to not trust the most prestigious doctor in America since he says stuff you don't like. But I wonder than where you get your info? trump? Newsmax? Dr Atlas? |
||
|
pawntificator 26-Jan-21, 07:34 |
|
||
|
Pawn So where do you get your info? Who do you trust? btw, Nationwide, 72% of likely voters said they approve of the job Fauci is doing in handling the outbreak and only 28% disapprove, the poll found. At the same time, only 41% of respondents said they approve of how Trump is managing the virus, versus 59% who disapprove. |
||
|
Actually www.federalpay.org |
||
|
pawntificator 26-Jan-21, 07:55 |
|
||
|
Z Top question, worthy of detailed discussion, strikes at the heart of a larger issue in contemporary politics. |
||
|
Steve Apparently he gets his information from.... wait for it.... memes It's true. Internet memes are a more trustworthy means of getting information than Dr Fauci, apparently. LOL. |
||
|
Evidence Globalists And NWO Crowd Created And "Found A Cure" For COVID 19 "Dr. Fauci Was Just Exposed On How Deep His Corruption Goes" The extent of "Dr. Deep State's" corruption has just been exposed. Under the direction of Dr. Anthony Fauci, the health agency gave $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That means, according to Rudy Giuliani, "WE PAID FOR THE DAMN VIRUS THAT'S KILLING US." Giuliani wants to get to the bottom of how it happened, especially since funding for that particular branch of research was prohibited by Barack Obama in 2014, entirely because of the danger. Fauci allowed funding of prohibited research President Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, wants to know why the United States gave a bunch of money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Dr. Anthony Fauci was in charge when the grants were made to the "level four super lab" in Wuhan, China. That happens to be the place where they do all their bat related virus research. The institute is also likely the birthplace of the novel coronavirus. A recent report indicates that our intelligence units have "growing confidence" that the unique strain escaped from a Wuhan lab. The story that it came from the local "wet-market" is only a smokescreen. In an interview on Sunday, Giuliani demanded to know why we funded our own destruction. "Back in 2014," Giuliani explains, "the Obama administration prohibited the U.S. from giving any money to any laboratory, including in the U.S., that was fooling around with these viruses. Prohibited!" It was not a suggestion. The State Department was loudly warning about "how suspicious they were in the way they were developing a virus that could be transmitted to humans." Somebody didn't get that memo. "Despite that, Dr. F auci gave $3.7 million to the Wuhan laboratory." trendingrightwing.com "Dr Fauci: Globalist Snake Oil Saleman" - AIM Here's confirmation Fauci has been working with Wellcome Trust & The Pirbright Institute (UK) (Coronavirus patent holder) for a long time. From Wikileaks archives: Moral: This 2009 C.I.A. propaganda document proves Coronavirus is not Fauci's first rodeo at fooling the public with fake pandemics to enrich his Big Pharma intelligence handlers Sean Noonan. (Sep. 21, 2009). (1) US/FLU- Young children need 2 doses of H1N1 vaccine- US [incl. Anthony Fauci NIH]. Stratfor, Reuters, The Global Intelligence Files, Wikileaks Email-ID 1680879. (1) www.fbcoverup.com wikileaks.org GlaxoSmithKline (the Wellcome Trust), Sanofi, AstraZeneca and Novartis are tightly aligned with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Merial Animal Heath Institute (UK & China), The Pirbright Institute funded by DARPA (U.S.) & DERA (UK) truthbits.blog "Tony Fauci is Corrupt to the Core!" www.veteranstoday.com "FAUCI'S TREACHEROUS TIES TO CHINA AND GLOBALISTS" "Fauci's Pandemic: How He Caused It and Uses It" youtu.be STORY AT-A-GLANCE A report by Dr. Peter Breggin reveals Dr. Anthony Fauci's ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and globalists who have profited from the pandemic measures promoted by him as the leader of the U.S. Coronavirus Task Force Fauci has been the major force behind research activities that enabled the Chinese Communist Party to manufacture lethal SARS coronaviruses, which in turn led to the release — whether accidental or not — of SARS-CoV-2 from the Wuhan Institute of Virology In collaboration with the CCP and the World Health Organization, Fauci initially suppressed the truth about the origins and dangers of the pandemic, thereby enabling the spread of the virus from China to the rest of the world Fauci has supported and praised Director-General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a member of a Marxist-Leninist Ethiopian political party with a corrupt past and terrorist ties who has also been accused of covering up cholera outbreaks in Ethiopia theirishsentinel.com |
||
|
zorroloco 26-Jan-21, 15:47 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 26-Jan-21, 18:48.
|
||
|
Evening, Frank! I found your article interesting and full of information for me to take in, thank you. I did a quick search for <<Fauci allowed funding of prohibited research>> and came up with this, which you might be interested in: www.politifact.com "Giuliani said that in 2017, the United States gave $3.7 million to the lab in Wuhan at a time when such a grant was prohibited." "The grant was made in 2014, and the amount that went to the lab was under $600,000." "The grant restriction did not apply to identifying naturally occurring viruses, which is what the Wuhan lab did." +++ Would love to know your thoughts. |
||
|
Dr Birx Dr. Deborah Birx's shocking interview is way too late Deborah Birx trump coronavirus briefings rs vpx_00001330 (CNN) — Now she tells us. After nearly a year of supposedly coordinating the Trump White House's coronavirus response, Dr. Deborah Birx went public about the mishandling of a pandemic that has left more than 400,000 Americans dead. Dr. Birx went on "Face the Nation" Sunday night, and she dropped some bombshells. Jill Filipovic But it's not just the former president who came out looking bad. While Birx isn't wholly or even mostly responsible for Donald Trump's shocking negligence on a Covid-19 response, viewers were still left wondering: Why are we just learning about this now? Right off the bat, Birx said she was the only person in the White House working full-time on the Covid-19 response. A pandemic was raging, killing more Americans than any war in more than 150 years, and the Trump administration was fighting it with a dedicated team of one. Then Birx told her interviewer, Margaret Brennan, how the Trump administration simply passed the buck, ceding all responsibility to the states and offering them only "support" -- never fully explaining what that meant or understanding what they needed. And she disclosed that there was "parallel data" coming into the White House that Trump relied on. Birx said she suspected it came from Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist Trump put on the task force, who spent the pandemic spreading dangerous misinformation about Covid-19. How we can keep health care workers safe She said her own ideas for fighting the virus, which she developed based on deep data-dives and extensive research and planning, were disregarded. She said she didn't know if the former president was told to listen to her at all. And she added that the Trump team muzzled her, refusing to let her speak with the national press and clearly explain the real threat of the disease to the American people. Another jarring revelation: That nobody but Birx and her one aide regularly wore masks in the White House. All of this would have been good to know back in the spring. Or summer. Or fall, as Americans were deciding whether or not to keep Trump in office. Birx's interview is shocking and enraging. But to be fair to Birx, there are mitigating circumstances. Unlike the many power-seeking enablers and hangers-on who eagerly attached themselves to the Trump administration, Birx is a public servant who went where she was called in an emergency. The country was in crisis. Refusing to work for Trump could have put more lives at risk. "If I think I have something to add, I feel like it's my obligation to the American public to go in and do that," Birx told Brennan. "That's what a civil servant is supposed to do." It would have been great if she had occasionally stood up to the president and swatted down his dangerous lies, the way Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, did. But she occupied a different position, and lacked Fauci's experience navigating complex domestic politics. When Atlas came into the picture and had the ear of the president, Birx was, as Fauci himself explained, living "with this person in the White House every day, so it was much more of a painful situation for her." Fauci was more distant from the administration, which gave him greater independence and wider leeway. And Birx was no Fauci, a well-known expert with a stellar reputation who quickly gained a devoted following and was widely trusted by the public. Some of that trust surely came from his willingness to gently contradict the former president. But Fauci had another advantage over Birx: while Trump is mercurial and vindictive toward anyone he perceives as contradicting him or threatening his authority, he is particularly awful to women who cross him. Trump's big lie wouldn't have worked without his thousands of little lies It's tough to imagine that Birx would have changed much of anything by speaking out. She had a choice: She could call out the president for lying, lose her job and leave the White House Covid-19 task force in the hands of people like Atlas. Or she could keep her mouth shut and try to clean things up from the inside. She said she chose the second option, setting off to meet with state governors and help them with their Covid responses -- the only effective strategy at her disposal, since the Trump administration punted everything to the states. Birx fundamentally sees herself as a person with technical expertise who helps to solve public health problems, not a supporter of any particular administration. But like so many long-time federal employees and creatures of Washington, she seems to have badly miscalculated just how political this administration would make a deadly virus, and just how willingly they would ignore the science and endanger the public to soothe the ego of a fragile, unpredictable man. Even all of this context, though, doesn't absolve Birx. Yes, she's finally spilling a few of the beans about the former president's rank mismanagement of this crisis. But even in this latest interview, she was hesitant to be too critical of the Trump administration. She outlined her frustrations, but avoided pointed criticism of her former bosses. Even now, with Trump gone and retirement looming, Birx was unwilling to hold the previous administration fully to account. At the very least, there should be a thorough investigation into how the Covid-19 response was so bungled. Who exactly is responsible for failing to protect millions of Americans from disease and death? How did all this happen? Unfortunately, it's still not clear that Birx would be a transparent and fully forthcoming part of that process. Birx knows she made grave errors. "I could have done more, been more outspoken, maybe been more outspoken publicly," she said. While she didn't know how far she could have pushed the envelope, she wished she had pushed harder. So do we. |
||
|
pawntificator 26-Jan-21, 22:11 |
|
||
|
Z 19:04 |
||
|
But it does provide important context Much as I admire strong leadership, which I see as an essential component to "get the job done", this seems like a case where Trump's unique and powerful top-down ("my way or the highway") approach failed the leadership test. Yet unanswered: if NG members not trust the advice of your top medical professional, director of NIAID, whose advice do you trust? |
||
|
Steve Says a lot. I believe they KNOW they’re being sold a lie by their lying media. Admitting they read and believe the phony lying media would make the hypocrisy obvious. It appears they are just believing sources that suit their narrative. I love to be shown otherwise. |
||
|
I kinda do the same, tbh. It's really difficult for everyone to see outside their own paradigm. All of us, our brains lull us into believing what fits our model, while rejecting what doesn't. Our memories and imaginations fabricate more of our world-view than the world itself. We mythologise and classify and make sense of our predicaments in ways that very often are objectively false. We all also tend to dehumanise others in order to perpetuate our "self as hero" mindset. Not much help toward our real political dialogue, but excellent material for drama! We all need to fight these universal psychological biases much, much more than we do. Those that think they don't have them, just can't see them. But you know this already |
||
|
Steve That’s why I read The centrist CNN, NY Times, BBC, WaPost, the right wing Fox, leftish AlJazeera and as well as the extreme right wing Neutral Ground and the far left First Amendment. And I NEVER watch TV news. Nothing like getting your news from a wide range of sources. |
