Posted on 08/05/2021 8:36:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If arrogance and obsequiousness came in a bottle, Peter J. Hotez, MD, Ph.D., would be chugging it by the gallon. In a gallant defense of Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Peter Daszak, Hotez says that criticizing them or any other scientist with whom he agrees is a hate crime:
We should look at expanded protection mechanisms for scientists currently targeted by far-right extremism in the United States. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) has introduced a bill known as the Scientific Integrity Act of 2021 (H.R. 849) to protect US Government scientists from political interference, but this needs to be extended for scientists at private research universities and institutes. Still another possibility is to extend federal hate-crime protections.
This is not a joke. Hotez’s diatribe is published on PLOS Biology, a peer-reviewed open-access journal. As the political left stomps its feet about what it characterizes as the politicization of science and submits a bill to stop it, here is how Hotez begins his rant:
There is a troubling new expansion of antiscience aggression in the United States. It’s arising from far-right extremism, including some elected members of the US Congress and conservative news outlets that target prominent biological scientists fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.
His statement would be funny if it were not both tragic and frightening. Like many scientists within our research institutions, Hotez is bought and paid for. He has received at least one grant from the NIH every year since 1992. The NIH is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, with an annual budget of $32 billion to invest. Hotez’s work centers on vaccines and tropical diseases, so his funding will come from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the division Fauci leads.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
“I understand the importance of accelerating timelines for vaccines in general, but from everything I know, this is not the vaccine to be doing it with,” Dr Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, told Reuters.
Hotez worked on development of a vaccine for SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), the coronavirus behind a major 2003 outbreak, and found that some vaccinated animals developed more severe disease compared with unvaccinated animals when they were exposed to the virus.
“There is a risk of immune enhancement,” said Hotez. “The way you reduce that risk is first you show it does not occur in laboratory animals.”
Now, anyone questioning vaccine efficacy, questioning the unknowns about long-term effects, or expressing concern about infections among the vaccinated is an anti-vaxxer, according to Hotez. In an appearance on MSNBC, he claimed that this criticism is now a feature of “far right-wing extremism.” His assertion is in search of support since the “Dirty Dozen” of vaccine misinformation, according to the report the White House used, has precisely one Trump supporter in it.
It’s Fauci who is a blithering hate crime.
Wait a minute, this is great news for me! I love it! This means when we are trying to clear a new medical device or packaging configuration with the FDA they will be unable to question our department’s findings.
Any criticism of our department by FDA officials will now be a hate crime. Yippeeeee!
Freedom of Speech is a hate crime? How is criticizing someone a crime?
This will never pass Constitutional muster. Not even with the current band of phoney “originalists” on the US Supreme Court.
RE: Freedom of Speech is a hate crime? How is criticizing someone a crime?
The Communist Government in China thinks so. They just jailed a Chinese Billionaire for among other things, “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” for 18 YEARS for criticizing the government.
Heck Alibaba Founder Jack Ma was “asked” to resign from his CEO post and his shares in the company stripped to ZERO for being too outspoken. We don’t even know where he is now.
What we’re seeing are the seeds of a Chinese-style ideology creeping into the USA ( as described in Mark Levin’s latest bestseller - AMERICAN MARXISM ).
If you think I’m exaggerating, just look at how they’re treating some of those who entered the Capitol on January 6. All of them held in isolation without trial. NO BAIL!
Yet, arsonists and thieves who burned buildings and looted stores in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death are FREE !!
It’s here in the USA folks. BE VIGILANT.
Criticism, particularly constructive criticism, is most definitely NOT “hate speech”, so long as the critic avoids any ad hominem attacks.
When it becomes personal and does not address the failures or lapses of the performance of the person subject to the criticism, then it certainly becomes something else.
Even so, damning a person’s performance by faint praise is still a legitimate form of criticism. again avoiding getting into direct scratching and biting.
I forgot to add “sarc” to my post. My bad.
Political speech has always enjoyed the highest level of protection from the First Amendment.
“Science” has been politicized—therefore criticism of “science” is political speech.
Dr. FauXi is a political puppet—therefore criticism of him is political speech.
A far left extremist hates that far right extremists are afforded first amendment rights. Where have we seen this movie before?
Like many scientists within our research institutions, Hotez is bought and paid for. He has received at least one grant from the NIH every year since 1992.
The NIH is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, with an annual budget of $32 billion to invest.
His funding comes from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the division Fauci leads.
I passed criticism last year.
When I think of dr Fubar torture comes to mind.
Fauci should get the Nuremberg treatment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.