> claim maliciousness. To be fair, malicious was someone else's word. It's close enough I ran with it, but perfidy and incompetence might be better. We're trus

> claim maliciousness. To be fair, malicious was someone else's word. It's close enough I ran with it, but perfidy and incompetence might be better. We're trusting the guy to be a chief scientist and he's making political statements. > You can't pick and choose only part of the message and I'm not. I'm picking on the whole message as being something he could not have known and thus was damaging to claim. > But that was my personal opinion and not proof that Fauci acted in bad faith. His job is to not say unsupportable things so that we can base policy off of his words. What is it other than bad faith to conflate your politics and your job? > You and are I anecdotal data points with no responsibility to anybody Speak for yourself. I've got family. > Nobody got it "right" but the scientists were at least putting the effort in the right direction instead of right wing politicians. Nobody made him fight the lab leak hypothesis, etc. He's borrowing partisan fights. The WHO hasn't officially investigated so it can't know, and if it doesn't know, he doesn't know. Also, just fyi, there's no such thing as right wing anymore. The term means royalist. Left means communist, which there sadly is no lack of. Perhaps breaking free of these antiquated labels will give some clarity.