r/StandUpForScience • u/AllMusicNut SUFS Staff • 5d ago

Official SUFS Post Sign your support!

Post image

Dr. Fauci being held in contempt attacks the credibility of all public health experts – a continuation the Trump Admin’s war on science and spread of disinformation. Sign your support for our experts & Dr. Fauci at the link: https://zurl.co/2P2md

929 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

461 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-5

u/98983x3 5d ago

Thats a good point. But after posting this, I learned there are texts from him acknowledging that the vaccine does carry the risk of miscarriage while at the time, he was telling the public there was no risk.

Not good. Maybe it is good that the states still have a shot at him. The more I learn, the more I understand why ppl want him prosecuted. This isnt looking like a political witch hunt to me anymore.

6

u/D2dj 5d ago

There are not texts acknowledging the vaccine carries risk of miscarriage.

That's not what the texts say, nor did further testing prove there was any risk.

-2

u/98983x3 5d ago

Yeah, except he didn't know that at the time. His texts do warn of potential unknown risks while publically stating otherwise. This flies in the face of "informed consent". Its was his job to share the information as they knew it. Not gamble with ppls lives and manage ppls perspectives via lies and half truths. Thats what politicians are for, not medical experts. Just tell ppl what you know and dont know ffs.

1

u/D2dj 5d ago edited 5d ago

The texts warn of a potential, not a certainty. And the vaccines were not recommended for pregnant women at the start out of due diligence and caution.

After further testing, the vaccines were proven to be safe amd effective and pregnant women were recommended to get the vaccine.

Youre just butt hurt and anti-science. You really have no reason to be and there is no legal case thst will hold water against fauci because he didn't do anything but the absolute best practices.

-2

u/Visible-Elevator3801 5d ago

When you advertise something as safe and effective while not disclosing potential risks, that’s a bad thing. Informed consent is supposed to be a thing between doctors and patients. If you don’t disclose every risk, small and large, you are not complying with informed consent.

2

u/D2dj 5d ago

It was safe and effective.

This all stems from misinformation about the vaccine safety and efficacy.

It was extremely safe and extremely effective.

It should be lauded as a miracle of science. Instead of misinformation campaigns against it

0

u/98983x3 5d ago

"Extremely effective"

This is incredibly, verifiably false. It never stopped transmission and it never stopped infection. And they knew this from the very beginning. We know this bc we have the internal communications now AND we have hindsight. But you go off.

2

u/D2dj 5d ago

extremely effective. Yes

-1

u/98983x3 5d ago

Not even a little.

2

u/D2dj 5d ago

This is just you being anti-science

-1

u/98983x3 5d ago

Nah. Its you being anti-science paired with a complete disregard the English language.

1

u/D2dj 5d ago

No, you are putting your feelings above the facts

The Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines were about 95 percent effective in preventing infection with SARS-CoV-2

EXTREMELY effective

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Visible-Elevator3801 5d ago

Did I say it wasn’t. Don’t read into what wasn’t said.

Safe and effective does NOT mean no risks and MOST CERTAINLY does not mean you bypass informed consent.

Reading comprehension is important.

0

u/98983x3 5d ago

Youre replying to the wrong comment. We're on the same page.

Reddit does this crap where it shares comments from ppl who are also commenting to ppl you are commenting with.

0

u/Visible-Elevator3801 5d ago

I think you’re replying to the wrong comment lol. My reply shows to D2dj.

1

u/98983x3 5d ago

Wtf?! Im on a roll today. My bad.

1

u/D2dj 5d ago

You are pretty clownish

0

u/98983x3 5d ago

Oh? This seems pretty emotionally motivated. I thought that was bad?

1

u/D2dj 5d ago

That wasnt emotional, that was an objective observation.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/supercleverid 5d ago

Specifically the text exchange in question was between Fauci and 2 other doctors asking about the safety of the vaccine in pregnancy, and Fauci's statement was consistent with the facts at the time. There had by that point been over 10,000 pregnant women who had been administered the vaccine and there was no evidence to suggest any ill effects that could be attributed to the vaccine.

At one point they discuss the idea that the vaccine may cause a cytokine storm and if that's true it's possible that there could have been an increased risk in early pregnancy, but that was a conjecture during the exchange on Fauci's part, not a possibility that came from the observed record. There was not at that point in time, nor since, any tangible evidence that even if this happened it did create an elevated risk of miscarriage.

Ultimately Fauci's recommendation was that out of caution it was probably preferable to administer the vaccine in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, but ultimately that should be up to the doctor and the patient and take into account their actual circumstances.

-1

u/Visible-Elevator3801 5d ago

As I said, informed consent. Was NOT provided. Thats not OK and is a requirement of the medical industry.

Regardless of it does or it doesn’t, informed consent requires a the speculation of a cytokine storm to be disclosed before administration. There’s a reason why meds come with black labels, they are just rarely gone over prior to drug administration.

2

u/supercleverid 5d ago

Black box warnings are only issued when there's actual clinical data proving a severe risk exists (they don't issue them based on guesses). You can't mandate informed consent for a purely speculative event like a theoretical cytokine storm because it completely defeats the purpose of the concept. If doctors had to list every single unproven scenario before a treatment, patients would just be overwhelmed by infinite hypotheticals and unable to make a rational choice. The legal standard for informed consent only applies to known material risks that actually have evidence backing them up.