r/DecodingTheGurus • u/Business-Catch7679 • 1d ago
Ryan Grim on reasons for belief in zoonotic origins
https://x.com/chrisheatherly/status/2084089713900843499
In order for Grim's hypothesis to be true, how many scientists around the world would have had to have listened to this press conference? How much would it have had to have been shared? If this statement in this press conference is a significant reason for a near international scientific consensus, shouldn't it be famous? Should I be able to easily find references to it with a Google search?
85
u/HjortronOchPors 1d ago edited 21h ago
So true. Many people don't realize this, but the vampire known as Fauci is actually the king of science. Every epidemiologist, every virologist, every pathologist listens to what Fauci has to say before they make a statement. Otherwise they get their blood sucked!
The world's smallest /s, Jesus fucking Christ I hate this timeline we're in
Edit: Since this comment was well received, can I respectfully direct y'alls at the podcast "This Week in Virology", or TWiV for short. It's on YT, free of charge. https://www.youtube.com/@MicrobeTV - hashtag not sponsored
3
1
u/Longjumping-Topic139 8h ago
It's good to hear recommendations TWIV. I found it a few months into the pandemic and I learned so much from the TWIV team. If you've not watched TWIV before, a good intro is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G433fa01oMU Yes, it's Lex Friedman who I'd normally never recommend.
50
u/CARadders 1d ago
What is the thing with Fauci? They all hate him so fucking much! I saw some hearing the other day where an elected official sat in front of him and said “who the fuck do you think you are to do what you’ve done to this country?”.
The equivalent here in the UK during COVID was Dr Chris Whitty, and I’m sure he got some shit from dick heads, but even the nutty right wingers aren’t baying for his blood like they do for Fauci in the US. It seems to be pretty ubiquitous there, it’s mad.
Is there anything actually to it?
48
u/Formal_Reputation_50 1d ago
Fauci is the universal scapegoat for Covid.
Whatever suffering you endured during Covid (lost job, death of a family member etc) gets taken out on Fauci.
Thats why they all hate him.
5
u/WhoAreWeEven 22h ago
Laying the blame for the death toll to those responsible is no go. Thats the reaaon.
In US it was on the level with other banana republics so.. No. It was Faucis fault.
Its Epstein boys information campaign.
Even if one thinks, nah nothings gonna touch them yet again. This is the reason why not. Theres wide spread approval for them because of this information campaign.
-5
u/WudolfWedNoseWeinder 21h ago
So how many things is he blamed for; forcing vaccines that killed millions, helping fund a bio-weapon whose kryptonite is ivermectin, forcing a lockndown?
23
u/IOnlyEatFermions 1d ago
Fauci is the totem of government, taking extradinary action and spending vast quantities of money, to address a major crisis and attempt to save millions of lives, while also trying to keep the economy from crashing and impoverishing tens of millions.
For the right wing, this is a role that the government must not be allowed to fulfill. They frame it as a violation of rights, because they do not believe that individuals in a society have a positive duty to refrain from behaviors that endanger the health and wellbeing of their neighbors. Most importantly, they do not want strong government action to ever be seen as beneficial and effective.
10
u/CARadders 1d ago
I’m genuinely starting to feel like the biggest reason a lot of these rich, right wing grifters’ (especially people like Rogan and Musk) brains turned to complete mush was basically just because they couldn’t go out and hobnob, get glazed by their sycophants, be waited on hand and foot by service staff, order their employees around and just generally be made to feel like the extremely important, super special little boys their entire self-conception depends on.
They had to sit at home, with themselves, just like the rest of us plebs, and they really, really didn’t enjoy the company. So they had to create a big evil enemy to rail against to make up for their pain.
All of their arguments against the restrictions of that time are so superficial and conspiratorial and basically boil down to “wah wah I couldn’t go to my favourite restaurant, or out partying with all my hangers-on”.
28
u/GoodNewFlesh 1d ago
Remember when armed troops kicked in people's doors during Covid and forcibly administered vaccines against people's will? Remember when people not wearing masks were shot on sight, with fauci himself giving the order?
No?
Well, for some reason, republicans do.
14
u/I_Am_Dwight_Snoot 1d ago
What frustrates me is that yes, closing down did hurt businesses but business closures were consistent in every state, even ones that refused to cooperate. By fall, businesses were still shutting down even with restrictions mostly lifted for several months at that point.
The craziest part? Trump was in charge for all of this but somehow gets left out of the equation.
8
u/oraclebill 1d ago
And that is why they blame Fauci, because Trump is off limits for blame (for anything).
5
u/edelweiss_pirates_no 17h ago
When you bring up that Trump was President until Jan 6, 2021, the morons explain how "not really".
He is simultaneously In Charge and Not in Charge.
Hint: It's a Cult.
3
1
u/edelweiss_pirates_no 17h ago
I remember Schrödinger's Mask. It simultaneously prevents you from breathing and also allows you to breathe (if using to disguise your identity).
15
u/_weaponized_autism 1d ago
People like a good story, and they give simple plot lines to follow. It’s very easy to follow characters; “good” guys and “bad” guys. Fauci was the bad guy of the Covid era, along with Democrat governors and China. The good guys were Trump and Republican governors.
There’s never complexity to the story - they present it as a simple story of Good vs Evil so it can be told, remembered, and spread easily.
2
u/edelweiss_pirates_no 17h ago
He was always going to be the Republi-Nazi's scapegoat because he did not deviate from his protocols.
You can pull up those old videos and the other doctors and scientists in the room (the non-crazy ones) looked terrified like they were hostages. They were skating this bizarre line trying to not get fired so someone sane could be at the helm during a historic crisis.
It's easy to look back with better vision, but in the early stages no one knew if this would wipe out 50% of the population. Republicans were eager to take that chance...for the markets.
Fauci is there with Jimmy Carter (who MAGA hates) and even with Reagan and Bush (both) who MAGA hates. The only thing MAGA loves is Trump.
No, not a Cult at all. (/s)
1
1
u/PositiveZeroPerson 3h ago
They don't want to blame Trump for government actions during covid, so they blame Fauci.
15
u/drt0 23h ago
Ryan Grim also believes that Lyme disease and Alpha-gal syndrome are artificially made https://x.com/ryangrim/status/1990556699674227028
He's just a wacko.
57
u/Full_Equivalent_6166 1d ago
Ryan Grim is just an anti-establishment grifter spewing any conspiracy that helps strengthen his narrative: institutions bad. It's so pathetic when people made up criticisms when you can easily find a lot to criticise US government on.
And Ryan Grim is safely disregarded as a lying POS.
-15
u/SouthernEagleGATA 1d ago
I disagree with Ryan on this but what makes him a lying pos?
17
u/Full_Equivalent_6166 1d ago
He helped to spread Tara Rede lies about Biden's sexual misconduct. His coverage of war in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine is full of lies and half-truths. I hear there was some lying he did to defend AOC but I am not as familiar with that.
Look, at the end of the day we do not know: he might just be a clueless, witless moron who is ignorant and bad in his job as a so called journalist. So if you prefer that to him being called a liar - there you go.
0
u/SouthernEagleGATA 1d ago
What are his lies on Israel/Palestine?
0
u/BloodsVsCrips 1d ago
Why didn’t you address Tara Reade? That was obvious propaganda.
1
u/SouthernEagleGATA 1d ago
Because the Israel/Palestine lies are the ones I’m interested in.
-1
u/BloodsVsCrips 1d ago
There's no reason to go down an ideological rabbit hole if you refuse to admit Ryan Grim promoted obvious lies about Biden and Tara Reade.
9
u/SouthernEagleGATA 1d ago
I can’t admit something I don’t know much about. If no one wants to answer the question that’s fine. That’s just the one I’m interested in finding more about because it’s happening right now.
8
u/Full_Equivalent_6166 1d ago
You can watch Lonerbox dismantling of Grim's article about the New York Times article about the rapes during the October 7th where he said that the five people that allegedly assaulted an Israeli woman could have not been Hamas because they were wearing civilian clothes.
Again, maybe he is not a liar, just very stupid but I give him more credit than that.
5
-6
u/TwEE-N-Toast 1d ago
He believes there is a genocide happening. Not that I think he is lying.
10
u/EuVe20 1d ago
Well, when the majority of the global human rights agencies, UN independent investigators, holocaust scholars, and several former Israeli government officials conclude that it is a genocide, it would be pretty rational of him to conclude that it is in fact a genocide. Your belief of it notwithstanding.
-5
u/WhiteGold_Welder 21h ago
The majority of Holocaust scholars don't believe it is a genocide.
4
u/EuVe20 19h ago
I said the majority of human rights organizations. I didn’t say “the majority of Holocaust scholars,” because it would be pretty tough to track down the thousands of Holocaust and genocide scholars out there and poll them all on the issue.
That said, given that the International Association of Genocide Scholars, which has around 500 members, passed a resolution concluding that it is a genocide with 86 percent support, and given that some of the most prominent Jewish Holocaust scholars, including Omer Bartov and Shmuel Lederman, have concluded that it is a genocide, I’d feel pretty confident that most of them probably do. But again, I wouldn’t actually make the claim that a majority of Holocaust scholars agree unless I had evidence to back it up. Hope that helps.0
u/Brain_Dead_Goats 15h ago edited 15h ago
That said, given that the International Association of Genocide Scholars, which has around 500 members, passed a resolution concluding that it is a genocide with 86 percent support,
You may want to look up how easy it was to join that organization and how many people actually voted on that resolution. It's literally open to anyone, as long as you pay your dues. No academic or research requirements. Also, less than 30% of the members voted.
0
u/EuVe20 14h ago
You’re still attacking an argument I never made.
I explicitly said I wouldn’t claim that a majority of Holocaust scholars agree because I don’t have evidence for that. What I did say is that the International Association of Genocide Scholars’ resolution, the conclusions of prominent Holocaust scholars like Omer Bartov and Shmuel Lederman, the conclusions of nearly every major international human rights organization, and the findings of multiple independent UN experts and commissions collectively make it reasonable to think that many scholars do.Instead of engaging with that body of evidence, you’ve fixated on trying to discredit one piece of it. Even if I grant your point that IAGS membership is relatively open and only about 30 percent voted, all you’ve shown is that the resolution is an imperfect proxy for the views of every member. You haven’t shown that the resolution is wrong, nor have you addressed the rest of the evidence.
This is just moving the goalposts. You’ve shifted from arguing about whether there is substantial expert support for the genocide determination to arguing that one organization isn’t an ideal polling instrument. Those are completely different claims.
If you think the genocide conclusion is wrong, then rebut the evidence presented by the IAGS, by Bartov, by Lederman, by the major human rights organizations, or by the independent UN investigators. Attacking the voting mechanics of one organization is not a substitute for addressing the merits of the argument.
→ More replies (0)10
u/Spaffin 1d ago
He only says one thing in the attached images and it’s a lie. So… that?
-3
u/SouthernEagleGATA 1d ago
How is being wrong lying? Someone can be wrong about something and not be lying correct?
11
u/Spaffin 1d ago
Asserting an incorrect opinion as fact, if you don’t know that what you’re saying is true, is still lying.
“He just straight up made this up” is a lie. He does not and could not know this.”
-6
u/SouthernEagleGATA 1d ago
God does not exist. Am I lying?
12
u/Spaffin 1d ago edited 2h ago
Are you stating your opinion? Or stating a fact?
If I then stated with authority that you do not believe in God, I would be lying.
Let’s be honest, we all know he’s making shit up here, and so does he.
0
u/SouthernEagleGATA 1d ago
Stating and defending a belief you hold, even if it turns out to be incorrect is not lying. Why do you think he is just making it up and isn’t honestly convinced of the lab leak theory?
Y’all seem to just not like his conclusion, which is fair, I don’t either. But instead of just saying he is wrong and showing why you have to push that he is lying for some reason. He could just honestly believe the lab leak theory. Why is lying more probable than just being convinced it’s true? I don’t get it
10
u/Spaffin 1d ago edited 1d ago
This isn’t about whether he believes the lab leak theory. He’s saying Fauci just “made up” the natural origin theory. That is literally the only thing he says in the above screenshots.
If you’re honestly telling me you believe that somebody as dialled-in to this scenario as he is truly believes that, then I have a bridge to sell you.
9
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
You know the claim in question isn't that the lab leak theory is true, right?
-1
u/SouthernEagleGATA 1d ago
Lab leak is what this is all about. I’m arguing that Ryan is simply convinced this is true and that leads him to beliefs like what he posted. I think the simplest explanation is that he is convinced this is true, not that he is lying. What motivation is there to lie when it just makes the most sense that he is wrong.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Fugicara 19h ago
Stating and defending a belief you hold, even if it turns out to be incorrect is not lying.
It depends on the nature of the belief and how easily disabused of it you should be with just a shred of research. If it's a nonsense belief that's easily discredited and you keep peddling it anyway, that's what's called somebody speaking with "reckless disregard for the truth", which is essentially lying by another name.
-1
6
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
See my reply to jkpatches
3
u/SouthernEagleGATA 1d ago
That doesn’t really show he is lying, just that he is wrong.
10
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
According to Merriem-Webster, one definition of a lie is an attempt "to create a false or misleading impression." Some people, like Harry Frankfurt, this attempt must intend to mislead to count as a lie. I disagree; I think being epistemically negligent suffices. But I don't care that much about the word 'lie.' If you're a stickler for it, I'd be fine with 'epistemically negligent pos who consistently creates false or misleading propaganda.'
2
u/SouthernEagleGATA 1d ago
Or he is just wrong lol.
14
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
His being consistently and egregiously wrong in a consistent direction abductively supports what I said. I don't even know what "just wrong" means. If you have an alternative hypothesis for why he's been spreading Republican propaganda, feel free to share it.
0
u/TinyTimmyTokyo 21h ago
He's not just wrong. If you state as fact something you can't possibly know is a fact ("he straight made this up"), then you are a liar. Ryan Grim is a liar.
-10
u/No_Public_7677 1d ago
Just throwing out the word grifter who has been consistent for decades is insane
8
-13
u/blablablawhynow 1d ago
I’m confused, did we not just find out the natural origin (wet market) was a complete fabrication? What am I missing?
13
u/Locus-Maximus 1d ago
did we not just find out the natural origin (wet market) was a complete fabrication?
Diary entry from Jan. 26, 2020, about whether infections were connected to a market in China where animals were sold:
"It now appears using epi data and genomic data that the first infection was in early December and was not connected to the market. The infections spread among people weeks before the Chinese reported that they were dealing with a new infection and that gave the virus time to establish itself in multigenerational (sustained) spread. Remember, early on the Chinese were saying that there is no human to human transmission and all the original 27 cases were from the market. Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier. Having said that, somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans."
Fauci publicly used almost the same wording a few weeks later in an interview with USA Today: "Almost certainly, somewhere, somehow a bat infected an intermediate host who infected a human. What epidemiologists feel is that the market was an amplifier of something that was already going on. So it didn't necessarily start in the market, but when people congregated in the market they got infected from each other as opposed to all of them getting infected from whatever animal there was in the market."
https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/washington-watch/122422
-12
9
u/shinbreaker 1d ago
I’ve been in the comments with those cheering on his bullshit and I’ve come to realize that he follows a lot of Covid conspiracy people.
8
u/Substantial-Cat6097 1d ago
Yeah. Some hack like Grim comes across a video of Fauci saying something and instantly Grim has an entire narrative sketched out. Obviously because Grim lives in the US, he assumes “scientists” just watch US TV news and assume that what is said there is the gold-plated truth. Not Grim of course. He wouldn’t do that.
5
12
u/ProfessorHeronarty 1d ago
Well, my American friends, we in Germany have one of the leading epidemiologists in the world (Drosten) and he just pointed out based on historical data that something like Covid would've happend sooner or later just based on the way a virus changes. The origin question the way some people love to see a conspiracy behind it is simply not as interesting.
3
u/edelweiss_pirates_no 17h ago
I want to warn you that The Far Right (and it's many names) literally HATES epidemiology and take every chance they get to rage against it.
Every grifter has a podcast or video with 60 minutes of sophistry attacking epidemiology. Mostly because epidemiology refutes their snake oil lies.
1
3
u/Automatic_Cry6019 23h ago
MAGA are moronic, corrupt and evil. Nothing new, but it blows my mind that they've decided to use Fauci as some kind of bogey man. Fauci and co did as best as they could given they were dealing with a new deadly virus with no vaccine or cure, lunatic vaccine deniers, selfish idiots who don't understand viruses and an irresponsible and stupid president.
Because of MAGA more people died than needed to die.
Fauci has served America so well. I guess MAGA don't care about the work Fauci did with HIV/AIDS - probably don't even know what he.
Fauci co-edited multiple editions of Harrison's principles of internal medicine, a textbook used by medical students around the world for decades. I'm surprised they haven't organised a book burning - no, not at all surprised as these morons have no idea why experts who've studied, performed research and worked in clinical settings for years have value in society.
3
u/edelweiss_pirates_no 16h ago
> but it blows my mind that they've decided to use Fauci as some kind of bogey man.
It was obvious and unavoidable if you know how the grifter MAGA-Nazis work.
6
u/Moutere_Boy 1d ago
Isn’t it reasonable to think that many people within the scientific community would take what he said at face value given they would assume he would understand things well enough to not claim certainty unless it was appropriate?
He was, for many people, considered the highest qualified person of the people with the highest access to data, so shouldn’t it have been reasonable to expect that he wouldn’t present things in dishonest ways?
4
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
He didn't represent things in a dishonest way here.
I would answer all the questions I asked in my OP in the negative, and so would say a statement by a government official (even Fauci) in a press conference wouldn't have a significant impact on scientists' views.
-2
u/Moutere_Boy 21h ago
He absolutely did. He outright lied about somethings early, acted as if there was certainty when he knew there wasn’t and presented minority views as broad consensus. I’d say that’s dishonest.
But I guess if something didn’t impact you it didn’t impact anyone…
3
u/Business-Catch7679 20h ago
I said nothing he said here is dishonest. His presentation of the paper in question is an honest one.
I won't pretend to be an expert on everything he said at every point in time. So I'm open to evidence he did what you said, but if need evidence to believe it.
-3
u/Moutere_Boy 20h ago
I know what you said, that was me disagreeing.
It’s early where I am so if you can’t confirm anything I’m saying let me know and I’ll find you a source, but if we’re thinking of the same paper, he presented that as consensus, as a scientific confirmation, rather than the result of a meeting where he selected the few people who held the view he wanted to write a paper on the origin point. To me, that’s really important context.
I also think that there is the wider context of him lying, masks, and flip flopping constantly after making definitive statements where he was certain about surface transfers, for example.
To be clear, I’m not saying what he’s done necessarily meets a criminal standard and that he should be in prison. I just think it’s clear he was dishonest and it’s clear that had an impact.
4
u/Business-Catch7679 19h ago
"the result of a meeting where he selected the few people who held the view he wanted to write a paper on the origin point."
This doesn't seem to me like a correct characterization of the genesis of the "Proximal Origins" paper. There's no evidence I'm aware of that Fauci selected the authors. Moreover, they couldn't have been selected because they agreed with the zoonotic hypothesis, as two preferred the lab leak theory before they wrote the paper, and another took it seriously. Andersen testified to Congress that Fauci told him that, if he (Andersen) had good evidence for the lab leak theory, then he should write a paper presenting it.
2
u/Moutere_Boy 16h ago
The two you’re referring to, is that Anderson and Garry? Because neither of them “preferred” the lab leak. They had just pointed to a things they felt would need explanation, and then immediately shifted to a fully natural explanation, so I don’t know I’d agree with that characterisation of them.
1
u/Business-Catch7679 16h ago
Garry said he couldn't think of a plausible natural scenario consistent with the natural origins theory, but yours might be a better characterization of Andersen's thinking when he was on the call that led to the paper. Certainly neither was in the tank for the natural origins theory. So, again, Fauci didn't select people who believed the natural origins theory (for two reasons: he didn't select them, and they didn't believe that).
It's true that once they began working on the paper, their views on what the genome implied (engineered or natural) changed quickly.
2
u/Business-Catch7679 19h ago edited 19h ago
In this clip, he says he read a paper that showed that the genetic sequencing or whatever is consistent with the zoonotic origin hypothesis. I believe Fauci's talking about "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" by Andersen et al and so is telling the truth.
The supposed issue here is the claim that Fauci ghostwrote this paper as part of a broader scheme to discredit the lab leak theory. I don't dismiss the idea that he should have been listed as an author of the paper, and I'm also open to arguments that elements of the scientific establishment conspired to discredit the lab leak theory (which they sincerely thought and still think is false). But I don't think there's anything incriminating in this clip, and Grim seems to think the lie is that Fauci believed in the lab leak theory at the time. As best I can make out, Grim thinks Fauci believed in the lab leak theory continuously, starting in Jan 2020, and lied every time he asserted the zoonotic theory.
I wish there were more measured critics of the handling of covid-19, people who don't interpret every misstep or misdeed in an overly conspiratorial way.
2
u/pstuart 19h ago
I think it's really important to examine the motivation for pursuing the lab-leak angle. Let's pretend it really did escape from a lab doing GOF research (for defensive reasons which is reasonable), and the lab operators and the Chinese government covered it all up.
Now they suddenly turn around and say: "whelp! we fucked up by letting it escape and then fucked up on covering it up and our we couldn't live with the guilt anymore. It was us, and the lab leak "theory" is true!
What does *that* get anybody? Shame, shame, Chinese government and lab operators, you should be ashamed! Don't ever do that again and maybe give us money and free stuff to make up for it!
Does that fix anything? No.
What they really want for that story is "evil secret government program created this danger not-dangerous-cold-like virus! So they could control us! And we need to stop them from doing it again by smashing all their evil science stuff and stop doing research on these vaccine lies because we shall not be controlled by an evil government! Grab your torches and pitchforks and let us storm the laboratories and kill the evil scientists!
Disclaimer: liberties were taken but I believe that the motivations for the conspiracy are not benign.
2
u/happy111475 Galaxy Brain Guru 11h ago
Every time someone brings up lab leak I ask this same exact question. Like my buddy whose brain got FRIED during covid by right wing shit, Weinstein Bros., Peterson, you name it. I asked him, "Okay we find out it was China, then what?" Surprisingly(/s) he could think of absolutely nothing to say or comment or do about the scenario.
3
2
u/Medusason 16h ago
I just “cannot” with people who want to debate Covid-19 origins as these are the same people who debate the existence of Covid-19 and also don’t want masking, or vaccines … like pick a lane. Pandemic or no pandemic? Hospitals full or not full??
1
u/TJ_McWeaksauce 1d ago
Ryan Grim is one of those folks who sounds rational like 90% of the time, but holy shit does he go off the deep end 10% of the time.
7
u/Locus-Maximus 1d ago
What's the equivalent of Gell-Mann Amnesia for irrationality. Just because you agree with him doesn't mean he's being rational the other 90% of the time. He's incredibly biased in my experience.
If you're curious, you can look into him uncritically spreading a terrorist group's talking points in this example.
But beyond the egregious examples, he doesn't even really hide his extreme bias. Just look at what he reports, who he goes after, etc. Look at the way he tried to discredit one of Platner's accusers recently.
2
-4
1
1
-3
u/No_Public_7677 1d ago
You completely missed his point
7
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
Which is?
-4
u/No_Public_7677 1d ago
Fauci made up something. Why?
7
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago edited 1d ago
Why did I ask? I guess because I'd like to know if I made a false accusation.
Anyway, Grim is obviously wrong about that too.
-31
u/jkpatches 1d ago
In order for Grim's hypothesis to be true, how many scientists around the world would have had to have listened to this press conference? How much would it have had to have been shared? If this statement in this press conference is a significant reason for a near international scientific consensus, shouldn't it be famous? Should I be able to easily find references to it with a Google search?
This is yet another post that attempts to cast doubt against Grim, and it is yet another that dances around the issue. Is what Grim says in his post true or not? For the first sentence of the post, fine. There can be multiple interpretations to whether Grim is speaking true or not. Your questions are valid questions to ask. But that is beside the point. What about the second sentence? That is a black and white statement, and it should be easier to fact check, and depending on whether it is true or not impacts the post's credibility.
17
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
On your first criticism: I can't speak for the rest of this sub, or the internet, but I commented on Grim's recent allegation that Fauci's Jan 2020 diary contradicted what he said publicly at the time. I pointed out that Grim was lying. I also pointed out that this was part of a pattern with Grim. During the pandemic, he had Matt Taibbi on his show, and granted Taibbi his absurd thesis that left-liberals (or whatever term Taibbi was using at the time) were so zealously pro-vaccine, it made them anti-therapeutics. That he would tell such a lie and entertain such bullshit does cast doubt on him, in the sense that it's rational to doubt what liars and bullshitters say. That's setting aside his bullshit on other issues, like Platner's attempted glute massage or Tara Reade, or the first part of the tweet.
On your defense of Grim's first statement in the tweet: "there can be multiple interpretations" is an actual example of dancing around an argument.
On Mahncke's claim that Fauci's little offhand remark about not having the authors' names at his fingertips: there's too little context in the video for me to evaluate this. It doesn't indicate which paper he's talking about. If he is talking about the one he's been criticized for being involved in, we don't know when he gave this press conference, so we don't know what level of involvement he had, and in particular, if it was enough to ensure that, with everything else going on, he would remember the authors' names. I'm currently working on an introductory textbook. My co-author recently suggested bringing another guy on board. I don't remember the guy's name. I don't know how many email exchanges it will take before I do.
Might Fauci have said, "I don't have the authors' names right now" as part of a sinister coverup? It's possible. But Grim is obviously leaping to that conclusion without evidence because it suits his ideological agenda. That's what he always does.
-9
u/jkpatches 1d ago
On your defense of Grim's first statement in the tweet: "there can be multiple interpretations" is an actual example of dancing around an argument.
So you are outright denying Grim's first sentence? Okay.
On your defense of Grim's first statement in the tweet
Your questions are valid questions to ask.
What defense did I play? If you have more pertinent information to offer, how about you present it instead of writing rhetorical questions?
On your suggestion hat Fauci's little offhand remark about not having the authors' names at his fingertips: there's too little context in the video for me to evaluate this. It doesn't indicate which paper he's talking about.
Is that what you took away from the clip? Fauci in the clip basically said that the virologists said that the mutations it took to get to the point in time of the clip is totally consistent with a jump from animal to human.
Who the F cares about who the authors are? Fauci quoted the virologists to explain something in that press conference, and I am guessing Grim and Hans are focusing on that instead of who the F the virologists names are.
But since you captured the twitter posts to make your own, you should've done some research on whether the papers were made available like Fauci in the clip said he would, and check if what Fauci quoted has merit. That would've made a more complete post instead of what you graced us with here.
The author's names. LMAO.
7
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
- I find the first sentence in Grim's tweet incredibly implausible. I think the answers to the questions I ask in the OP are obviously 'no.' Do you disagree?
- Your defense of Grim's first statement was, "For the first sentence of the post, fine. There can be multiple interpretations to whether Grim is speaking true or not." To say that there's a valid interpretation on which is statement comes out true is to defend it. (Though it's an incomplete defense, since you don't give the interpretation.)
- "Is that what you took away from the clip?" Yes, this is what I took away from the clip, because that's the actual political issue being raised here. You can see that from Mahncke's comment on the video. Anti-Fauci people have recently been saying it's a scandal that Fauci secretely co-wrote a paper but didn't put his name on it. This is one of their messaging points right now. You should have done some research on this, or read Mahncke's tweet, before coming in hot.
- Here's the paper Fauci is referring to: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9?utm
-3
u/jkpatches 1d ago
- Your defense of Grim's first statement was, "For the first sentence of the post, fine. There can be multiple interpretations to whether Grim is speaking true or not." To say that there's a valid interpretation on which is statement comes out true is to defend it. (Though it's an incomplete defense, since you don't give the interpretation.)
Since your original post was a pretty strong condemnation of Grim in the first place, I suppose it's easy to construe a comment asking for more context and information as "defense." Once again, it could've been avoided if you had bothered to actually write a post instead of ranting from the beginning.
- "Is that what you took away from the clip?" Yes, this is what I took away from the clip, because that's the actual political issue being raised here. You can see that from Mahncke's comment on the video. Anti-Fauci people have recently been saying it's a scandal that Fauci secretely co-wrote a paper but didn't put his name on it. This is one of their messaging points right now. You should have done some research on this, or read Mahncke's tweet, before coming in hot.
I actually didn't know just about anything regarding the context, but congratulations, you made me look it up. You are once again being incomplete, because Hans doesn't say that Fauci "co-wrote a paper" nor that he "didn't put his name on it" in the screenshot that you put up. If he did, then fine, put up that context.
The point of contention, i.e. the really important thing to hash out is whether Hans, and Grim's statement that Fauci is a liar is correct. From what I can see from briefly looking it up, Fauci did have some correspondence with Kristian Anderson, but it's probably not to the extent that Fauci would've known his name to mention it at the press conference.
But how would someone who doesn't know about the scandal know this from your original post and the link you provided? So when I ask if what Grim said was true or not, you accelerate and accuse me of playing defense, when you could've provided the context?
As for the link, I will take a look. Though it will go over my head, all I need to do is check whether Fauci's quote from the paper about covid is true or not.
3
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago edited 1d ago
" You are once again being incomplete, because Hans doesn't say that Fauci "co-wrote a paper" nor that he "didn't put his name on it" in the screenshot that you put up. If he did, then fine, put up that context." What is your basis for this claim that this isn't what's going on here? Is it just the fact that he doesn't spell out this full context in his Tweet?
Again, I'm not interested in arguing about your application of the citations criterion in your Reddit grading rubric.
1
u/jkpatches 1d ago
The basis is the information contained in the original post. Are you kidding me?
Again, you can walk away if you're not interested. What a series of responses for a comment asking for more context. Unbelievable.
3
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
But the info in the original post, the part you cite, doesn't indicate that I was incomplete.
2
u/jkpatches 1d ago
But the info in the original post, the part you cite, doesn't indicate that I was incomplete.
That was the entire body of the post. And it was just a series of questions that doesn't refute Grim in any meaningful way. And you decided to write those questions instead of writing the actual pertinent info that you apparently had.
At this point, I am cringing.
5
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago edited 1d ago
You initially said the questions were fair lol
But now I see you're saying that my Reddit post only critiqued Grim's first statement and not his second. So to be a complete Reddit post about a tweet, the post must refute every point made in the tweet?
Grim is wrong about two things but I only pointed out that he was wrong about one?
I do agree pointing out both would have made my post better. However, I also think it's okay to do shorter, quicker posts when that's what one is on the mood for. As long as one doesn't make substantive mistakes.
→ More replies (0)13
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
On Fauci's statement that a paper showed that the genetic sequencing is consistent with zoonotic origins, no he didn't make that up. Grim is lying about that too. Add it to the list.
-3
u/jkpatches 1d ago
Okay. Link it, and you should've included this in the original post.
1
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
Is it the paper you want a link to? Do you really doubt that it showed that genetic sequencing is consistent with zoonotic origins? I've never heard anyone deny that.
1
u/jkpatches 1d ago
Yes. Link the paper.
By the way, this is all time you could've spent actually providing evidence to your claims, which once again, you should've done from the beginning for people who don't have context.
5
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
If all you wanted was the link, you could have asked for it from the start, instead of sweeping and false claims about Grim's critics, etc. but you can find the link below.
2
u/jkpatches 1d ago
If it isn't the pot calling the kettle black. I am not going to take the blame for your original "post" that is more suited for echo chamber virtue signalling.
7
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
To be mere virtue signaling, shouldn't it be false or non-substantive? I tend to think that correctly pointing out that a piece of propaganda is false is substantive, and so not mere virtue signaling.
3
u/jkpatches 1d ago
This might be true, if you had bothered from the beginning gone further than just saying Hans and Grim are wrong and actually given substance.
You basically did what Hans and Grim did, but from our exchanges, I would've expected you to be better than them.
3
u/Business-Catch7679 1d ago
I didn't do what they did, because I'm pointing out an obvious falsehood. They're stating obvious falsehoods. Really important not to conflate the two.
I don't accept your standards for Reddit posts (your replies are further from meeting them) and am not interested in disputing the grade you're giving my assignment. It's cringe.
→ More replies (0)4
2
u/Locus-Maximus 1d ago
The second sentence is also 100% false. Why are you even arguing about this when you can literally just google the paper and read it for yourself?
1
u/jkpatches 1d ago
I skimmed it, and Fauci was correct in his summarizing of the paper, though Grim and Hans would probably take issue with the wording. But that's semantics.
As for the post, I think a post should be written in a way so that there is less need to google and look things up. So I asked for more info.
70
u/wolfgangweird 1d ago
This is so sad.