Feb 2020 emails reveal Fauci knew all along masks

It would be disappointing to see him recommend experimental or unproven medicine, or vitamin supplementation. Look at the backlash to vaccines with low rates of adverse reactions. The obese don't really need to be told that losing weight will improve their health.

For example, with hydroxochloriquine, this appeared in a recent study just published in April:

"Particularly, the two largest randomized controlled trials to date (RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY trials), both confirmed that CQ/HCQ regimen does not provide any clinical benefit for COVID-19 patients. Therefore, we do not recommend the use of this regimen in COVID-19 patients outside the context of clinical trials."

The Unkle wrote:

blankety blank wrote:

The "point is" that asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission are a false narrative, designed to justify draconian measures against the healthy. If you live in fear of a virus that is over 99% survivable, you should be welcome to lock yourself down but not destroy the life and livelihood of others.

That's my belief. No evidence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission has ever been given. And Fauci recently lied when he said initially it was not know if the virus could be passed in that manner and they later found out it was. Lie part 1. They told us from the get - go that it could be passed asymptomatically. Lie part 2. No study showing it can be passed in that manner was ever made public

So he faded towards caution rather than risk during the initial stages of a pandemic with a new virus. Groundbreaking stuff.

the macdaddy wrote:

So he faded towards caution rather than risk during the initial stages of a pandemic with a new virus. Groundbreaking stuff.

No. He lied. And Fauci recently lied when he said initially it was not known if the virus could be passed in that manner and they later found out it was. Lie part 1. They told us from the get - go that it could be passed asymptomatically. Lie part 2. No study showing it can be passed in that manner was ever made public[/quote].

He also lied about funding the dangerous research being done in the Wuhan lab. He also lied a year ago by belittling the idea the virus could have come from a lab.

He lied not to protect the public but to cover his own butt.

blankety blank wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The point has always been to slow down the rate of spread of a highly contagious airborne transmissible virus, when you are not complying with social distancing guidelines.

Asymptomatic and presymptomatic infection makes it impossible to determine who is healthy and who is infected.

The "point is" that asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission are a false narrative, designed to justify draconian measures against the healthy. If you live in fear of a virus that is over 99% survivable, you should be welcome to lock yourself down but not destroy the life and livelihood of others.

The allegations of "false narrative" are a false narrative.

A 1% death rate also destroys the life and livelihood of others.

I don't fear the virus, but I do fear the gullibility of non-mainstream media followers.

The Unkle wrote:

That's my belief. No evidence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission has ever been given. And Fauci recently lied when he said initially it was not know if the virus could be passed in that manner and they later found out it was. Lie part 1. They told us from the get - go that it could be passed asymptomatically. Lie part 2. No study showing it can be passed in that manner was ever made public

You say no evidence has been given, but I just looked and easily found a dozen publications indicating both asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread, starting with a cruise in March 2020, where 128 people tested positive, but only 24 had symptoms, to a January 2021 meta-analysis based on 8 studies, which estimated at least 50% of transmissions from exposure to those infected without symptoms.

You keep saying "lie", but your examples look like truths:

Initially, before March 2020, it was not known, so saying it was not known would be the truth. "Lie part 1" is not a lie.

Then, as knowledge progressed, they discovered infections without symptoms and without exposure to the symptomatic.

There are dozens of studies which have been made public.

Between Fauci and you, all I see is you spreading lies.

The Unkle wrote:

He also lied about funding the dangerous research being done in the Wuhan lab. He also lied a year ago by belittling the idea the virus could have come from a lab.

He lied not to protect the public but to cover his own butt.

Maybe you just don't know what a lie is, and you can't recognize who is telling you the lies.

A small clue - if there is a disagreement between a policitian and a scientist, it is most likely that the politician is being unscientific, rather than the scientist being political.

The lab theory was a possibility, and remains so, but a year ago, it was not considered the likeliest one.

What was Fauci's lie about "dangerous research"? The NIH was not doing this "dangerous" research, nor was EcoHealth, in collaboration with Wuhan, doing this "dangerous" research.

Fauci lied wrote:

Provided no more protection than installing chain link fences to stop mosquitoes.

Its going to be a long hot Summer for Dr Fauci.

Fauci changed his views based on the Dah Science. He did the time old test of sticking his finger in the air and seeing which direction the wind was blowing. Once the MSM became in love with masks he was all in.

I think what he said early in the pandemic was the truth on masks and his body language at the time seemed honest. In theory do masks work, yes. But in a public place where you're depending on Joe six pack to pull the dirty mask he's worn for a month out of pocket and half the people don't wear it right, masks are not going to make a meaningful difference.

rekrunner wrote:

[quote]The Unkle wrote:

That's my belief. No evidence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission has ever been given. And Fauci recently lied when he said initially it was not know if the virus could be passed in that manner and they later found out it was. Lie part 1. They told us from the get - go that it could be passed asymptomatically. Lie part 2. No study showing it can be passed in that manner was ever made public

You say no evidence has been given, but I just looked and easily found a dozen publications indicating both asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread, starting with a cruise in March 2020, where 128 people tested positive, but only 24 had symptoms, to a January 2021 meta-analysis based on 8 studies, which estimated at least 50% of transmissions from exposure to those infected without symptoms.

Huh? Less than 20% of the people testing positive had symptoms? How does this prove the virus is being passed asymptomatically? Doesn't it instead call into question the accuracy of the tests? As far as "meta-analysis" based on 8 studies estimating a number....what doe that prove? Sound like BS. Where is one simple study done that proves this?

You keep saying "lie", but your examples look like truths:

Initially, before March 2020, it was not known, so saying it was not known would be the truth. "Lie part 1" is not a lie.

Have you no short term memory? We were told in February of 2020 that the virus was passed asymptomatically. You really don't recall this?

Here is one piece of proof:

Then, as knowledge progressed, they discovered infections without symptoms and without exposure to the symptomatic.

There are dozens of studies which have been made public.

Really? Can you provide one?

sderd wrote:

Running message board. Maybe you did not get the memo.

What memo? The one that says not to talk about the affect of wearing a mask while running, which so many HS runners were required to do over the past year? Mask wearing is directly associated with a running message board because in many cases over the past year masks were required equipment for runners.

rekrunner wrote:

blankety blank wrote:

The "point is" that asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission are a false narrative, designed to justify draconian measures against the healthy. If you live in fear of a virus that is over 99% survivable, you should be welcome to lock yourself down but not destroy the life and livelihood of others.

The allegations of "false narrative" are a false narrative.

A 1% death rate also destroys the life and livelihood of others.

I don't fear the virus, but I do fear the gullibility of non-mainstream media followers.

Your arguments are as compelling as Faucis wet market origin lie. A house of Fauci Falsehoods has utterly collapsed taking your credibility as even a low standard troll with it.

rekrunner wrote:

forward planning wrote:

Can we not be Healthy And Infected?

So what's wrong with the herd immunity idea. Does it not fit the narrative that has been imposed on us from the beginning?

Unless you get creative with semantics, we cannot be both infected while shedding virus, and healthy.

The issue is not bending semantics to fit some alternate notion of health, but deciding who is shedding virus, so we can determine who should wear masks. If we cannot tell by obvious symptoms, that determination becomes impossible.

Nothing is wrong with herd immunity -- the safest way to achieve that is through vaccinations.

Without vaccinations, we would end up with 7x the current figure of the population dead from COVID, and maybe more because hospitals are saturated.

This fits the scientific narrative from beginning to end.

Wow. Now you're suddenly a Virologist an Immunologist and an Epidemiologist. And you've achieved this academic greatness all in the space of 15 months.

Chapeau!

blankety blank wrote:

ienjoyracing wrote:

Bro did you read it? In the email he says masks are really only for people who are sick so that they protect those around them, it doesn’t protect the wearer. So basically what literally everybody already knew and what he has been saying this entire time. I’m sorry if you didn’t know that masks aren’t supposed to protect the wearer. If that was the case (that they protect the wearer) anti maskers wouldn’t be accused of being selfish and nobody would give a care that anti maskers refuse to wear masks in Walmart.

So if you are not sick, then no point in wearing a mask, just as there is no point in locking down and quarantine of heathy people.

This is true and completely rational. However, the problem with the pandemic was we didn't know who was sick and who wasn't.

Date of email? What was the science at the time?

thinking out of box wrote:

The Unkle wrote:

Fauci wrote: "Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you."

Date of email? What was the science at the time?

February 5th 2020. Science does not change. Masks that are "not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material" do not become effective a month later.

No, it doesn't call into question the accuracy of the tests.

A meta-analysis might sound like BS, if you haven't taken the time to read and understand it.

So who lied in this example? Fauci or the "New England Journal of Medicine"?

What Fauci said, based on reading that paper of 4 Germans, was "asymptomatic transmission is occurring".

It looks like, due to the "flaw", that the scientists waited for further confirmation with observations on larger populations, and that the knowledge did yet not come with the NEJM "proof".

In March 2020, more studies indicated and confirmed that asymptomatic and presymptomatic positives were likely significant enough to warrant recommending wearing face coverings, leading to a recommendation on April 3rd.

But crucially you have not proven that "asymptomatic spread" and "presymptomatic spread" is a lie. Normally, before you can call it a lie, it is customary to establish that the opposite is the truth. You have not met this burden.

Your proof also shows that I am correct about your allegations of lies are themselves "dishonest":

"Update, 2 June, 7:20 p.m.: This story has been cited widely on social media to argue against the use of face masks and shelter-in-place policies. This is based on a misreading of the article. The fact that the New England Journal of Medicine paper had a flaw does not mean asymptomatic transmission (by people who have absolutely no symptoms) does not exist; this is still under discussion. But it is now well-established that people with very mild symptoms—so mild they are unlikely to recognize them as COVID-19—can infect others and even spark large outbreaks of disease."

Yes. Here is one from Singapore that likely contributed to the recommendation:

Fauci wrote: "Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection.

"The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material.

Feb 5, 2020.

Weeks later -- masks are mandatory.

No contradiction there.

Sheesh.

RekkedRunner wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The allegations of "false narrative" are a false narrative.

A 1% death rate also destroys the life and livelihood of others.

I don't fear the virus, but I do fear the gullibility of non-mainstream media followers.

Your arguments are as compelling as Faucis wet market origin lie. A house of Fauci Falsehoods has utterly collapsed taking your credibility as even a low standard troll with it.

If "the "point is" that asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission are a false narrative", someone needs to establish the "true narrative" before calling "asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission" a "false narrative".

This house of Fauci falsehoods must have collapsed into non-existance, because nothing is there.

Every example I have seen so far of an alleged "Fauci lie" was either true, or based on a false interpretation.

forward planning wrote:

Wow. Now you're suddenly a Virologist an Immunologist and an Epidemiologist. And you've achieved this academic greatness all in the space of 15 months.

Chapeau!

I'm none of these things -- I just know how to read.

I strongly encourage all but the most committed trolls to no respond to the avuncular poster. He's nothing but a extremely dimwitted, pernicious madposter. You won't get anywhere with her.