zlacker

Rogin covers this in his book “Chaos under heaven” and his earlier articles. Here is Rogan/Rogin snippet https://youtu.be/IqhKlkkc2Eo

>>AzzieE+(OP)
You're saying that Rogin reported that Anthony Fauci "covertly funded gain of function research", and that this fact (which constitutes an absolute blockbuster story) wasn't reported or corroborated anywhere in journalism, by an author who's everywhere in print and on TV but who somehow never said this in public, and the only linkable source is a podcast?

Yeah, this didn't happen.

>>newacc+vg
this is fascinating. Rogin is making the claim right before your eyes and your conclusion is that he doesn't mean it because he never printed it?

>>AzzieE+1k
He's literally not. I don't have the book, your other link is a podcast. And (this is the really important part) literally no one else, not even Breitbart or conservative link farms who would slurp this up like candy, is reporting that Rogin said it.

So I choose to believe that you're just wrong about what he said. Again, Fauci covertly directing funds to an area of research that the medical community has recognized as ethically problematic for decades would be huge news. And all you have is a podcast? Seriously?

>>newacc+6q
Thank you for this fascinating insight into a stranger’s decision making process. I am not being ironic

>>newacc+6q
As claimed by Rogin, the medical research community is privately divided but largely unwilling to speak out publicly because they don’t want to be labeled conspiracy theorists, don’t want to be associated with supporting a position tangentially aligned with trump, and first and foremost don’t want to jeopardize their grants or careers.

According to Rogin, Fauci did not so much covertly direct funds, but rather, quietly reinstated gain a function research which was stopped by the Obama administration (without approval from the Trump administration). He also doubled down with new grants in the same area as a response to the pandemic.

I personally find none of this particularly difficult to believe given other positions the medical establishment has taken over the coarse of the pandemic and the extreme lack of curiosity in the press.

>>newacc+6q
Are you taking issue with the word "covertly", or the statement that Fauci's NIAID funded GoF research? Because the latter is also claimed directly in the OP.

>>AzzieE+(OP)
You shouldn't have used the word "covertly". That completely distorted your point and made it false.

I watched the Joe Rogan Josh Rogin clip you linked to. It's very interesting. But what Rogin says is that Fauci "found a way to turn gain-of-function research back on". He doesn't say that Fauci did anything covertly. He's describing effective bureaucratic maneuvering, which Fauci must be good at. He couldn't have stayed in his job for decades otherwise.

"Covert" means something very different, for example if he had taken money that was assigned to different research, funneled it to gain-of-function labs, and then falsified reports about how the money was spent. Some outrageous scenario like that is what you're implying with that word. Rogin implies nothing of the sort. Actually, from the facts in the OP article, which are drawn from public reports, it's clear Fauci got what he wanted overtly. That's how effective bureaucrats get things done.

By overstating the claim, you distracted from the significant thing, which is that Fauci was a major funder of gain-of-function research and, in the dispute between virologists about whether it was too risky or not, was strongly on the side that advocated for it. The other side managed to get the research shut down for a while, and then Fauci managed to get it turned back on. There's no suggestion or evidence that he did so in bad faith, as Rogin is careful to point out. But it does mean that he has a conflict of interest in dismissing the lab leak hypothesis, just like Daszak does. That's already a very strong point, and a lot for people to take. If you say that it was "covert" on top of that, you're acting like the very conspiracy theorist they want to tell everyone you are, and helpfully providing them with a bit that is easily debunked.

>>guesst+an1
good point, I am not a native English speaker and let things like these slip time to time.

>>guesst+an1
> By overstating the claim, you distracted from the significant thing, which is that Fauci was a major funder of gain-of-function research

I'm sorry, but I've been digging and I just don't see any major justification here. I'm sure there's subtlety, but there's just no one in the research world coming out to say this. There are no accusations being made. There's no memo with his name on it. There's no specific study cited that he pushed. There's nothing. No one is covering this.

This is just the next conspiracy theory, isn't it? It's not falsifiable, so everyone is going to believe it anyway. This is how we got Q. You're doing it again.

>>kansfa+CW
> the medical research community is privately divided but largely unwilling to speak out publicly because they don’t want to be labeled conspiracy theorists

So there's a hidden truth that happens to confirm the priors of a bunch of highly-on-the-internet people, but without any evidence in public. And the fact that the evidence doesn't exist is being cited as an argument that it must exist because of asserted suppression.

Well, for sure someone's going to be labelled as a conspiracy theorist. Seriously: it doesn't surprise you that the same folks that were so into Q a few months back are suddenly all aflutter with this omg-Fauci-created-covid nonsense?

>>newacc+vh3
> And the fact that the evidence doesn't exist is being cited as an argument that it must exist because of asserted suppression.

No, its not "the fact that it doesn't exist" that lends credence to existence. The incentives involved for everyone who ostensibly would look for its existence align to have them look the other way. Given other circumstantial evidence, that is suspicious!

> Seriously: it doesn't surprise you that the same folks that were so into Q a few months back are suddenly all aflutter with this omg-Fauci-created-covid nonsense?

As near as I can tell, your argument here is: create a crazy conspiracy theory, attribute it to Rogin, point to the conspiracy theory as proof that Rogin is crazy. No one in this thread nor Rogin have claimed that Fauci literally created the corona virus. The claims are 1. Fuaci is a proponent of research that Obama shut down because its of little value and dangerous, 2. a lab in china with shit opsec was doing the same research on corona viruses which happened to be where the outbreak started, 3. Fauci re-instituted the research program under Trump without input from the Trump administration.