• This article reads like a complete fabrication, full of misinformation. I’ve read half a dozen other accounts of his testimony, and not one of them mentions anything in this specific version, which they would have.

    • This article is literally quoting the official press release of the committee’s chairman:

      https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-releases-statement-following-dr-faucis-two-day-testimony/

      Dr. Fauci claimed that the “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation promoted by federal health officials was likely not based on any data. He characterized the development of the guidance by stating “it sort of just appeared.”

      Dr. Fauci acknowledged that the lab leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory.

      Dr. Fauci admitted that America’s vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic could increase vaccine hesitancy in the future.

      • The main problem I have is that they didn’t link to any official statements. There was no way to independently verify that anything that they said was true. I’m not an expert on research at all, and there was no easy way for me to verify anything that the article said.

        They only linked to their own previous posts that didn’t even clearly prove the point they were trying to make. After clicking on a couple links and seeing that they were unrelated to the point they were trying to push on the reader, am I supposed to keep clicking?

        Fuck no, I’m not giving them clicks for that. So while Fauci may or may not have said the things that they accuse him of saying in the hearings, they clickbaited me enough to give up on it and just call them full of shit. Especially since I couldn’t find any corroboration from other media sites.

        Anyways, as it turns out, it was proven to be airborne and staying away from people was a solid way to inhibit transmission. Imagine that, an educated guess from highly educated people. But I digress.

        I hope I got my point across here.

      • And on top that that, Wenstrup is a fucking podiatrist from the state that I’m unlucky enough to inhabit. His personal “takeaways” from a hearing with a real doctor who spent his entire career studying epidemiology, really brings pause to accept his “personal takeaways” of the hearing, instead of just publishing the transcripts of the entire hearing.

        Cherry-picking quotes and publishing a Dr Seuss like summary isn’t the same thing.