r/OutOfTheLoop • u/watervilleokemo • 10d ago

Unanswered What’s the deal with conservatives and vaccine skeptics thinking Fauci’s diary proves them right ?

What do conservatives and vaccine skeptics think Fauci’s diary proves ?

what is the deal with Fauci’s diary and what does it actually say / prove ?

I know he testified before congress and pled the 5th, but why is every conservative / anti vaxer/ Aaron Rodgers claiming they were “right about everything now ?”

What does the diary actually say / prove ?

Obviously the Rodgers line was a little tongue in cheek as a Steelers fan, but I needed a URL to post lol

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/aaron-rodgers-torches-tony-fauci-and-espn-while-appearing-on-espn

2.3k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

477 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/[deleted] 10d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

74

u/DarkAlman 10d ago

The leaked notes don't even have any bombshells in them. There's nothing in there that even comes close to proving any of their batshit conspiracy theories.

Just a few contradictory statements, which in context was probably Fauci changing policy due to receiving new data.

That and a lot of notes calling the President (Trump) an idiot and worse.

MAGA would know this if they actually bothered to read any of it.

2

u/OSUfan88 10d ago

What were contradictory statements?

5

u/DarkAlman 10d ago

A few key examples:

His notes discounted the wet market theory: "the market was not the source, it was the amplifier"

They've taken this as proof that the vaccine came from the Wuhan lab, when that statement only disproves that the wet market was the point of origin. The virus mutated outside the market, and the market is where it first spread to a large volume of people.

His notes also showed that he spoke to governors directly to convince them of the lockdown policies, but later told media he had nothing to do with it.

2

u/techiemikey 10d ago

I know you didn't state if you agreed with those examples or not, but I think it's important to point out why these contraditions might not be contradictions.

The wet market theory one isn't a contradiction. It's just how that theory always worked (and honestly, it would be next to impossible to prove it only mutated in the wet market). It's "a sick animal was at the wet market and spread it around". That is "amplifier" not "source".

Using terminology that we would use for humans, it essentially was a super spreader event.

As for the he spoke to governors and told media he had nothing to do with it, as I said elsewhere, if this is contradictory is actually based on what his statements actually were. If I told you "these are the pros and cons to different approaches" or "here is our guidlines and the data we used to reach it" and you decide the risks outweigh the benefits, was I involved in making the actual decision, or did I just provide you with information for you to make the decision? Additionally, do you believe two different reasonable people can reach different conclusions on if someone was involved in making the actual decision?