4 ms·

> Most of those I've spoken to agree that a serious breach of these principles was in 2022, when Musk tweeted: "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci", thereby managi

> Most of those I've spoken to agree that a serious breach of these principles was in 2022, when Musk tweeted: "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci", thereby managing to simultaneously offend the LGBTQ community, express an antivaxx sentiment, and put Fauci, already under attack from antivaxxers, at further risk. This statement is clearly relevant to a scientific society. It is not just about unrelated bigotry by a fellow of that society.

zosima 2y ago
Elons statements were obviously not aimed at Faucis role in vaccine discussions, but in his much more dubious role in gain-of-function research and especially covering up the origins of Covid. While that is relevant to a scientific society, I think it's worth taking a good hard look on whether its wise to take a side on that, other than maybe denounce gain-of-function research.
- fabian2k 2y ago
  I can't keep track of all conspiracy theories Musk has amplified or told himself, but there is another example with Fauci directly linked to vaccines in the blog post.
- cauch 2y ago
  If it was Musk's intent (but I doubt it was the case, because it does not fit with a lot of other things that Musk did or said that show he is aiming at Faucci role in vaccine discussions), he should have acted to avoid poisoning the debate. There were plenty of "normal" way to do it, and in fact, other members of the Royal Society have done so and have expressed concerns when similar things have happened. To me, it sounds like "Sure, Musk pooped in his hand and thrown it to the speaker during the conference, but the speaker made a sign mistake in their equation". If someone is saying that this attitude is awful, it does not mean that this person is pretending that the sign mistake did not occur and should not be corrected.
- viraptor 2y ago
  Tweets without context are not "obviously" aimed at specific things. Prosecute/Fauci was both ambiguous and in bad taste.
  - tim333 2y ago
    He later clarified https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1602113254360162304 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1602113254360162304
cies 2y ago
There are many doctors who express problems with the C19 vaccines. In some countries (most notably Japan) there are public hearings and parliament questions. In the west it seems this is not allowed. Fauci was close with the EcoHealth Alliance. He tried to hide gain of function research. There are a lot of criticism to this NGO, "including a joint letter signed by 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies." (Wikipedia). To the public Fauci straight up lied by promoting the vaccine as safe and effective, while he did not have the evidence to support that (and most likely did know that pregnant women in the trail had a lot of "spontaneous abortions", but recommended it for pregnant women anyway). While I'd be the last person to defend Elon (he prevented unionization in Tesla, which he so get jail time for imho), I do think that it's time to prosecute Fauci. He seems to have been complicity in the AZT debacle. Sticking it in a pronoun joke is something we should not cry over, it's just a joke.
- VMG 2y ago
  > and most likely did know that pregnant women in the trail had a lot of "spontaneous abortions" This is incorrect information https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10152171/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10152171/ Pregnant women are at higher risk of getting COVID which is liked to preterm birth
  - bondarchuk 2y ago
    That's from 2023.
  - tgma 2y ago
    And if you were a scientist who was going to lead a study that could conclude otherwise, Francis & Fauci took extra care to make sure you were less likely to receive NIH funding. https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/how-collins-and-fauci-shattered-our-trust-in-public-health/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/how-collins-and-fauci...
    - VMG 2y ago
      just look at the table of the studies that were included and the countries where the studies were performed
didntcheck 2y ago
How is criticizing a particular politician [1] "antivaxx"? This intentional conflation of scientific "truth" [2] with the particular policies that a democratic government decides to implement was one of the most blatantly bad faith phenomena of the pandemic. Even if we had an oracle that could have given us perfect future predictions, it would still not be able to answer the ethical questions of which path to choose. That's for the people to decide And punishing people for disputing the current "truth", and criticizing sacred cows, would go directly against the RS's principles. "Nullius in verba" [1] Yes, he is one [2] A notion which itself goes against the principles of scientific inquiry
hagbard_c 2y ago
Given that I'm listening to Kennedy's The Real Anthony Fauci while typing this I have a hard time taking this seriously. Both the 'offend the alphabet community' (whatever that might be given that there is no love lost between the L and Q, G and Q, B and Q, L and T and G and T factions in this 'community') as well as the defence of Fauci, a person who declared himself representing The Science™ while recklessly trampling its principles. Does that mean that everything Kennedy writes and says is the true gospel? Of course it doesn't nor does it need to. What it does say is that Fauci is not the person I'd choose as a representative for how to do science and that prosecuting the man sounds like a good idea. After all, if he is innocent he has nothing to fear, right? Let this cesspit be opened and let those who are shown to have to have abused their power, misled the public and acted for personal gain and against the trust put in them by the public be dealt with. In short, let The Science™ be exposed for what it is, a sham. Let the trust in lower-case science, scientists and the scientific method be restored by exposing the charlatans who sought to abuse the former's standing for their own purposes.
- fabian2k 2y ago
  If the conspiracy theorist RFK Jr. is who you get your information from, I can't help you.
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    I get my data and information from many places, both officially sanctioned as well as those which are in opposition to those sources. I also use a good dose of scepticism when dealing with all sources, both the former as well as the latter. Where do you get your information?

zosima 2y ago

Elons statements were obviously not aimed at Faucis role in vaccine discussions, but in his much more dubious role in gain-of-function research and especially covering up the origins of Covid. While that is relevant to a scientific society, I think it's worth taking a good hard look on whether its wise to take a side on that, other than maybe denounce gain-of-function research.

fabian2k 2y ago
I can't keep track of all conspiracy theories Musk has amplified or told himself, but there is another example with Fauci directly linked to vaccines in the blog post.
cauch 2y ago
If it was Musk's intent (but I doubt it was the case, because it does not fit with a lot of other things that Musk did or said that show he is aiming at Faucci role in vaccine discussions), he should have acted to avoid poisoning the debate. There were plenty of "normal" way to do it, and in fact, other members of the Royal Society have done so and have expressed concerns when similar things have happened. To me, it sounds like "Sure, Musk pooped in his hand and thrown it to the speaker during the conference, but the speaker made a sign mistake in their equation". If someone is saying that this attitude is awful, it does not mean that this person is pretending that the sign mistake did not occur and should not be corrected.
viraptor 2y ago
Tweets without context are not "obviously" aimed at specific things. Prosecute/Fauci was both ambiguous and in bad taste.
- tim333 2y ago
  He later clarified https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1602113254360162304 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1602113254360162304

cies 2y ago

There are many doctors who express problems with the C19 vaccines. In some countries (most notably Japan) there are public hearings and parliament questions. In the west it seems this is not allowed. Fauci was close with the EcoHealth Alliance. He tried to hide gain of function research. There are a lot of criticism to this NGO, "including a joint letter signed by 77 Nobel laureates and 31 scientific societies." (Wikipedia). To the public Fauci straight up lied by promoting the vaccine as safe and effective, while he did not have the evidence to support that (and most likely did know that pregnant women in the trail had a lot of "spontaneous abortions", but recommended it for pregnant women anyway). While I'd be the last person to defend Elon (he prevented unionization in Tesla, which he so get jail time for imho), I do think that it's time to prosecute Fauci. He seems to have been complicity in the AZT debacle. Sticking it in a pronoun joke is something we should not cry over, it's just a joke.

VMG 2y ago
> and most likely did know that pregnant women in the trail had a lot of "spontaneous abortions" This is incorrect information https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10152171/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10152171/ Pregnant women are at higher risk of getting COVID which is liked to preterm birth
- bondarchuk 2y ago
  That's from 2023.
- tgma 2y ago
  And if you were a scientist who was going to lead a study that could conclude otherwise, Francis & Fauci took extra care to make sure you were less likely to receive NIH funding. https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/how-collins-and-fauci-shattered-our-trust-in-public-health/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/how-collins-and-fauci...
  - VMG 2y ago
    just look at the table of the studies that were included and the countries where the studies were performed

didntcheck 2y ago

How is criticizing a particular politician [1] "antivaxx"? This intentional conflation of scientific "truth" [2] with the particular policies that a democratic government decides to implement was one of the most blatantly bad faith phenomena of the pandemic. Even if we had an oracle that could have given us perfect future predictions, it would still not be able to answer the ethical questions of which path to choose. That's for the people to decide And punishing people for disputing the current "truth", and criticizing sacred cows, would go directly against the RS's principles. "Nullius in verba" [1] Yes, he is one [2] A notion which itself goes against the principles of scientific inquiry

hagbard_c 2y ago

Given that I'm listening to Kennedy's The Real Anthony Fauci while typing this I have a hard time taking this seriously. Both the 'offend the alphabet community' (whatever that might be given that there is no love lost between the L and Q, G and Q, B and Q, L and T and G and T factions in this 'community') as well as the defence of Fauci, a person who declared himself representing The Science™ while recklessly trampling its principles. Does that mean that everything Kennedy writes and says is the true gospel? Of course it doesn't nor does it need to. What it does say is that Fauci is not the person I'd choose as a representative for how to do science and that prosecuting the man sounds like a good idea. After all, if he is innocent he has nothing to fear, right? Let this cesspit be opened and let those who are shown to have to have abused their power, misled the public and acted for personal gain and against the trust put in them by the public be dealt with. In short, let The Science™ be exposed for what it is, a sham. Let the trust in lower-case science, scientists and the scientific method be restored by exposing the charlatans who sought to abuse the former's standing for their own purposes.

fabian2k 2y ago
If the conspiracy theorist RFK Jr. is who you get your information from, I can't help you.
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  I get my data and information from many places, both officially sanctioned as well as those which are in opposition to those sources. I also use a good dose of scepticism when dealing with all sources, both the former as well as the latter. Where do you get your information?