Why doesn't Trump fire Fauci?

submitted by fschmidt from self.Coronavirus

I hate Trump - all talk and no action. The least he could do would be to fire Fauci, yet he does nothing.

all 25 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

What has Fauci done that makes you think he should be fired?

[–]fschmidt[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Fauci basically attacks everything good and supports everything that is bad. He attacks Hydroxychloroquine because it works. He supports bad drugs, hopeless vaccines, deadly ventilators, and pointless lockdowns and masks. This is because Fauci is completely corrupt and gladly kills people for profit.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

Ventilators aren't deadly, they're just not very effective at saving COVID-19 patient's lives. You get put on a ventilator once you're at the point where you're going to die unless you have air forced into your lungs because you can't breathe naturally anymore. Even then something like 80% still die, but that's better than 100%.

HCQ, however, is not effective. He doesn't attack HCQ because it works, but because it doesn't. Here are the 3 largest studies of the efficacy of HCQ I'm aware of: One with ~1400 patients in NYC that shows no difference, another with ~4500 patients in the UK that shows no difference, and another with ~2500 patients in Michigan that does show some difference, although it's worth noting they also tested azithromycin in that study and using HCQ in combination with azithromycin actually worsened patient outcomes.

Bottom line is if HCQ actually worked, we'd see that in patient trials. But most trials point towards HCQ making no difference.

[–]fschmidt[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

If you want to believe lies, I can't help you.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Why do you think those studies are lies?

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Because he was dropped as a child, most likely.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Eh, people are naturally skeptical of claims that go against their worldview.

I think it's just politics. They're a fan of Trump, Trump came out and said HCQ was promising, so they reject people that say it isn't. Doesn't mean it's logical, but it's not like Trump supporters are the only ones susceptible to this.

Remember all the Clinton fans that swallowed the Trump Russia Collusion pee tape nonsense and still insist it's all real to this day?

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You are right, of course. I just couldn't help myself from being mean. There are so many people stuck in their echo chambers these days that I have grown tired of dealing with it I guess.

I applaud your patience.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Lol, even my patience has its limits. This person broke me

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Wow, that's pretty bad. This one was probably my worst.

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Any of those studies done on people who are not at the point of urgency hospitalization?

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Come on, they're all patient trials. To be a patient you have to have been hospitalized. So the answer to your question is no.

That being said, trials have also been done on that. Here's an article on that

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Adults who described a high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to someone with Covid-19 in their household or an occupational setting were provided hydroxychloroquine or placebo (by mail) within 4 days after the reported exposure, and before symptoms would be expected to develop. The authors enrolled 821 participants; an illness that was considered to be consistent with Covid-19 developed in 107 participants (13.0%) but was confirmed by polymerase-chain-reaction assay in less than 3% of the participants. The incidence of a new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]). Although participant-reported side effects were significantly more common in those receiving hydroxychloroquine (40.1%) than in those receiving placebo (16.8%), no serious adverse reactions were reported. This trial has many limitations, acknowledged by the investigators. The trial methods did not allow consistent proof of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or consistent laboratory confirmation that the symptom complex that was reported represented a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Indeed, the specificity of participant-reported Covid-19 symptoms is low,6 so it is hard to be certain how many participants in the trial actually had Covid-19. Adherence to the interventions could not be monitored, and participants reported less-than-perfect adherence, more notably in the group receiving hydroxychloroquine. In addition, those enrolled in the trial were younger (median age, 40 years) and had fewer coexisting conditions than persons in whom severe Covid-19 is most likely to develop,7 so enrollment of higher-risk participants might have yielded a different result.

You gotta be kidding me... I'll take a word of ER doctors and other family physicians over this any day.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I suspect you didn't really read this, otherwise that last paragraph should have given you pause.

This was the very first trial completed which observed the efficacy of HCQ as a prophylactic. As mentioned, like all studies there are always shortcomings, but that doesn't mean that the results are wrong, just that the door is still open for further investigation.

With that being said, any physician that is speaking to you as a medical expert is going to base his guidance on the scientific data available. And if you had gone to the website mentioned in the article, you could have checked to see how many completed trials that test HCQ for prophylaxis. The answer is 2, and the other one had ~2300 patients and also ended up with the same result. Any doctor worth his salt would tell you the same thing, because the only studies that exist show no effect.

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

somehow copy pasted a wrong section of the article.... Anyways, I will check the other stuff you linked too...

I don't see the result of the Spanish study....Que passar https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04304053

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't see the result of the Spanish study....Que pasar https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04304053

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

From the link I sent you "Although not yet published, the top-line results of no difference between the two arms was reported in Science journal online."

[–]kokolokoNightcrawler 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So there is one facebook study and the other scientific one which shd have been published already but hasn't...oook

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ventilators aren't deadly,

You want to walk that back? This was my first search result. It's a wiki page for ventilator injuries. The pressure that ventilators provide will tear up injured lungs. The patients don't need pressure, they need oxygen. You even question why there is a push for ventilators, when the last common use for them was polio? Of course not, it's not your place to question anything.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You want to walk that back?

No, no I do not. Congratulations on your wikipedia discovery, but the possibility of injury doesn't mean ventilators are killing people. They were already dead without the ventilators anyways. The ventilator is just a last-ditch attempt to save their life.

[–]hennaojichan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Three years ago he predicted that Trump, "will have an outbreak." To me, this indicates that a plandemic was already in the works back then and that Fauci is part of the scam. Forget the usual Rep/Dem dichotomy and imagine that three or more factions are fighting over this fake pandemic. It is this power struggle being forced through the Hegelian Dialectic filter that is causing such mismatches as Trump/Fauci. There are three or more nodes of power involved. Doesn't everyone see Fauci's gloating and delight at being in the spotlight and at the center of decision-making on this issue? Doesn't everyone see that Fauci is not concerned with the health of the hoi polloi? He is a fake, a charlatan with a Napoleon complex.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Doesn't everyone see Fauci's gloating and delight at being in the spotlight and at the center of decision-making on this issue?

I mean I've seen tons of praise for Fauci, and I think pretty much anyone would enjoy being praised like that. I don't think that makes him a bad person.

I tried looking up that Fauci quote, and from what I can gather it seems like you're talking about this talk. What he actually said during this talk was "If there’s one message that I want to leave with you today based on my experience, it is that there is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases,"

But as he said he was just talking from experience. The Obama administration had to deal with H1N1 and the Ebola outbreak that for a while people were worried about here. I know there have been other smaller outbreaks as well. My point is I think he's just speaking from experience as a guy that has been watching this stuff for decades and seen other disease outbreaks come and go.

[–]hennaojichan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Speaking from experience? He said quite clearly in the speech that, "Trump will have an outbreak" and that doesn't sound like speaking from experience to me. To me it sounds like someone who knows what is going to happen because he is in on the plan. If you see it differently, so be it. To me, it is clear that WHO, Fauci, and Gates have had a plan all along. China may very well be in the mix also. Fauci owns stock in vaccine companies and stands to make a lot of money. That's a confict of interest and also what makes the world go around. If you want to learn more about Fauci, the role play done by all the major "pandemic" actors in late 2019 at Johns Hopkins University, you can find it all in past /s/coronavirus posts.

[–]fschmidt[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did some more research and it appears that Trump actively supports corruption.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-trump-leading-generation-effort-ensure-americans-access-covid-19-vaccine/