It's like people learned nothing from the last go round. Keep obsessing about Trump, and you keep him in the discussion, and that's exactly what he wants. Thought Jon Stewart did a great job here talking about the media's obsession with Trump.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
If I read that letter to congress correctly, NIH funded a project to study one thing, but the money was used to complete another. So both statements could be right. Based on information from the grant they did not fund the research in question, but the researchers used the funds for different research. Believe it or not, that happens more than anyone would believe possible, because these grants can be written pretty loosey goosey because of the need to get money and not yet having the complete experiment or methodology of the experiment formalized. Crazy, I know.
If I read that letter to congress correctly, NIH funded a project to study one thing, but the money was used to complete another. So both statements could be right. Based on information from the grant they did not fund the research in question, but the researchers used the funds for different research. Believe it or not, that happens more than anyone would believe possible, because these grants can be written pretty loosey goosey because of the need to get money and not yet having the complete experiment or methodology of the experiment formalized. Crazy, I know.
Well yeah, but didn't Fauci say on record that there was no funding for the exact thing being brought into question here?
Seems pretty crazy to outright deny that knowing of course that it would become public record at some point.
Well yeah, but didn't Fauci say on record that there was no funding for the exact thing being brought into question here?
Seems pretty crazy to outright deny that knowing of course that it would become public record at some point.
He may have reported what the grant was written for and was unaware of any variance. There is a reporting process for tracking of spending for grants, but final reports are not submitted until the grant cycle is closed out. So he may have not been aware of the variance in application of the funding, and the variance may not have been discovered until the grant cycle was complete. Again, both can be true.
He may have reported what the grant was written for and was unaware of any variance. There is a reporting process for tracking of spending for grants, but final reports are not submitted until the grant cycle is closed out. So he may have not been aware of the variance in application of the funding, and the variance may not have been discovered until the grant cycle was complete. Again, both can be true.
Oh please.
He was aware. Especially at the time when he was asked 'on the record' which was long after the rumbling started that there had been funding to begin with.
Money doesn't go to China to fund lab research, and when said lab has an outbreak that leads to a world pandemic that kills millions of people, you completely forget that you funded them to begin with and call it an oversight.
If he wasn't aware, he should be fired for gross incompetence.
There were concerns for many years in regards to the exact research that was being done. The same concerns are with the lab in Winnipeg, and the fact that the government is completely trying to bury what happened there.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
He was aware. Especially at the time when he was asked 'on the record' which was long after the rumbling started that there had been funding to begin with.
It is very likely he wasn't. The grant process is very labyrinthine and confusing for those who do not deal with it regularly. For the common person it may not make sense, unless they actually immerse themselves into the process.
Quote:
Money doesn't go to China to fund lab research, and when said lab has an outbreak that leads to a world pandemic that kills millions of people, you completely forget that you funded them to begin with and call it an oversight.
Money didn't go to a lab in China. Money went to an interest whose interest was studying specific vectors that could result in pandemic level events. The grant funds went to EcoHealth Alliance, a New York non-profit who studies such events. The interest in question had involvement with a number of labs around the world, and Wuhan was but one of those.
Quote:
If he wasn't aware, he should be fired for gross incompetence.
It's really easy for a guy who wears a fry guy hat to make this statement, but the reality is that the processes behind these systems are much more complex than you are presenting.
Quote:
There were concerns for many years in regards to the exact research that was being done. The same concerns are with the lab in Winnipeg, and the fact that the government is completely trying to bury what happened there.
Yeah, this is total bull####, which I completely expect from someone who doesn't deal with grants. Grant R01AI10694 was approved in 2019 and scheduled for completion in 2024. It was approved, and then cancelled, and then reinstated in 2020, predominantly because Trump tried to politicize the research instead of the truth about the grant process or the status of the approved grant.
I'm going to cut you some slack because you have no idea how the grant process works. Fry guys don't know how management processes work in managing the restaurant, and this is one of those instances for the process in question. The grant process is a multi-step process where information is compartmentalized, so the potential to influence outcomes is minimized. Grants go through a very regimented process where design and implementation is due for review. A project is expected to provide details in the application and review process, but many times the details of the application are vague (like which lab is to be used for such research) so the process can move forward. A lot of the technical details do are not provided until the monitoring process, which comes after the approval and is a years long process.
What this means is that interests submitting grant requests are providing generic details in regards to the project so the "proposal" can be be approved and the technical details can be fleshed out. Once the proposal is submitted, it is peer reviewed and determined whether it should be funded. Once approved it enters the operational phase and, and the project enters the monitoring phase. This is where variation can take place. Whether that be the lab where things take place, or minor variations in the study itself, there is some fluidity to grants that take place. In this one, it was the outcomes.
To Fauci, an administrator is going to have access to reports pertaining to a grant only specific to the current approved state. Fauci would not have access ot this information. It would be an underling who is the grant administrator who access to such information. So a project that was approved to study "herpes incidents within hammer swingers" is only going to have access to the "proposal" available for review, until the project has come to completion. Once the project is complete the full project report will become available for administrative review, and then later, a public review.
In this particular instance, the proposal is the only information available because the end of the grant cycle is expected by 2024. There are people within the process who will have access to budgetary details in regards to the grant, but the actually operational or finding details will not be available until the grant is closed out. This is how grants work, so there is no external interference and the research drives the outcomes.
You have no way of knowing this. You have no way of knowing anything in regards to the grant process. It is very complex and very confusing, even to those who are experienced grant administrators. To expect a senior administrator to know ever aspect of any grant is expecting a restaurant manager to know the status of every fry in the basket that the fry guy is overseeing. Putting it in terms you an understand, the site manager is not responsible for the crooked nails the carpenter drives into a wall. The site manager can only report the information available to them, and in this case, the information is incomplete, and not expected to be complete until 2024.
It's like people learned nothing from the last go round. Keep obsessing about Trump, and you keep him in the discussion, and that's exactly what he wants. Thought Jon Stewart did a great job here talking about the media's obsession with Trump.
Goes on national TV to talk about Trump and his message is don't talk about Trump
Do you get off on just being loudly wrong about stuff? The reporter asked him about Trump.
Why do you think they invited him there? Networks know the schtick of guests. Stewart is very predictable. They knew what he was coming on to talk about, and all it took was a little bait to draw him there.
Why do you think they invited him there? Networks know the schtick of guests. Stewart is very predictable. They knew what he was coming on to talk about, and all it took was a little bait to draw him there.
And he did everything to avoid the bait and not talk about Trump. The rest of the interview (not in this clip), he doesn't really mention Trump at all.
Regardless, it's a pretty stupid "gotcha" by dino to bring that up rather than engage with the actual content of Stewart's message.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
And he did everything to avoid the bait and not talk about Trump. The rest of the interview (not in this clip), he doesn't really mention Trump at all.
Regardless, it's a pretty stupid "gotcha" by dino to bring that up rather than engage with the actual content of Stewart's message.
I'll agree with that. But Stewart has become an easy target right now. I think that's kind of sad because of how sharp he is, and how much good he could do.
I'll agree with that. But Stewart has become an easy target right now. I think that's kind of sad because of how sharp he is, and how much good he could do.
I think liberals are desperate for a voice/leader that still believes in liberal ideology but isn't just a puppet for the DNC. People love Stewart because he comes across as authentic and is still respected by progressives and some conservatives, despite not sharing their ideologies. It's not a surprise that the media is trying to use him in an attempt to boost their own legitimacy.
I think liberals are desperate for a voice/leader that still believes in liberal ideology but isn't just a puppet for the DNC. People love Stewart because he comes across as authentic and is still respected by progressives and some conservatives, despite not sharing their ideologies. It's not a surprise that the media is trying to use him in an attempt to boost their own legitimacy.
Some conservatives? I'll admit I've lost touch trying to speak right wing people in the past couple of years, but last time I was in touch with many of them Jon Stewart was seen as a left wing hack that carried water for the Democrats.
Keep in mind, my circle is pretty small with that relative to most who are politically engaged.
bunch of useless drivel & blabber that means nothing
Your spin is hilarious.
You don't fund gain of function labs and not know what is going on. People have been raising concern over this exact thing for years. We have known that SARS in general is a risk for years. They were playing with fire and got caught.
We aren't talking about a low-level staffer or middle management type saying 'oh it was an oversight that slipped through.'
He was directly asked if the funding happened, he lied. The NIH came out and clarified and said it happened. Cause he lied.
5 years of nonstop use of lies and misleading statements to destabilize his country and undermine faith in democratic institutions. There literally is no greater threat to the future of human civilization than Trumpism. And we're not supposed to talk about it?
The Following User Says Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
5 years of nonstop use of lies and misleading statements to destabilize his country and undermine faith in democratic institutions. There literally is no greater threat to the future of human civilization than Trumpism. And we're not supposed to talk about it?
That has been going on since long before Trump, focusing on Trump draws attention away from that and allows it to continue happening. Trump didn’t come up with the ideas of gerrymandering voting districts, Fox News, the term “fake news”, gaslighting, promoting divisiveness, or convincing people that “freedom” means laws don’t apply to you.
