Fauci is a freaking puppet/fall guy. He likely made a deal where by he gets to exit "science" and the public arena, with his reputation and retirement package in tact, in exchange for being the "face of science" during covid, to allow the WEFs play re digital society, AND he would be protected from the fallout of the Aids/HIV fiasco he initiated( see Celia Farber and co work if your curious), AND the SV40 simian contamination that was initially Salk and
And co's problem, but Fauci covered it up when it was going to come out later on (See Judy Moskovits And Ken Heckenlively's book Plague, likewise curious cats).
Fauci has so many freaking bodies and skeletons going on, it's no surprise if it comes out that Epstein had blackmail worthy dirt on him. And frankly Epstein was all go on the genetically modified populations agenda😉🤔😐🤐
So Fauci is sailing down the fall out river. Most likely he will ultimately meet an awkward end, but hey! The dudes 80years or so he'll live well in the meantime 😉🤷♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️😤
In the sciences, "authors" are routinely on papers that they don't write. There are almost always several names, the first name is usually (but not always) the person who wrote the paper, and the several other names could be 1) the head of the lab who funded, 2) people who were consulted, 3) younger colleagues to give them some exposure 4) someone the real author wants a favor from later and so on. Wherever you are in the list, it counts a "publication." Long story short, senior and powerful scientists can get a lot of publications legitimately (as things are done) without a great deal of work. You need to be careful about your inferences.
I probably should have wrote more above. I understand this is common practice & I'm sure the less renowned co-authors were only all too happy to have Fauci's name listed on their paper. Nevertheless, I would argue it is a dishonest and corrupting practice, and qualifies by definition as plagiarism if one of the names on the paper literally had no involvement in the work done to produce the paper.
I'm highly confident that for scores (hundreds?) of the publications in question, Fauci contributed zero to the research. If his contribution was simply having a part of funding it, isn't that even more troubling? "Dr. Fauci, we have this grant proposal we'd like you to approve, and of course you will be listed as an author on any subsequent publications."
To me, #2 in your list is legitimate. The value an experienced, senior person in the field can offer even if mainly in a consulting role can be a meaningful contribution to the paper. In my view, the others simply speak to the corruption that is widespread in the academic and research communities.
They got Al Capone on tax evasion. So I can see your point. But where exactly does it say that NIH employees cannot plagarize? I suppose the publications themselves would have to initiate the violations on the part of Fauci to get him in any 'trouble'. I am hoping he falls in a hole, deep hole.
Fauci is a freaking puppet/fall guy. He likely made a deal where by he gets to exit "science" and the public arena, with his reputation and retirement package in tact, in exchange for being the "face of science" during covid, to allow the WEFs play re digital society, AND he would be protected from the fallout of the Aids/HIV fiasco he initiated( see Celia Farber and co work if your curious), AND the SV40 simian contamination that was initially Salk and
And co's problem, but Fauci covered it up when it was going to come out later on (See Judy Moskovits And Ken Heckenlively's book Plague, likewise curious cats).
Fauci has so many freaking bodies and skeletons going on, it's no surprise if it comes out that Epstein had blackmail worthy dirt on him. And frankly Epstein was all go on the genetically modified populations agenda😉🤔😐🤐
So Fauci is sailing down the fall out river. Most likely he will ultimately meet an awkward end, but hey! The dudes 80years or so he'll live well in the meantime 😉🤷♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️😤
In the sciences, "authors" are routinely on papers that they don't write. There are almost always several names, the first name is usually (but not always) the person who wrote the paper, and the several other names could be 1) the head of the lab who funded, 2) people who were consulted, 3) younger colleagues to give them some exposure 4) someone the real author wants a favor from later and so on. Wherever you are in the list, it counts a "publication." Long story short, senior and powerful scientists can get a lot of publications legitimately (as things are done) without a great deal of work. You need to be careful about your inferences.
I probably should have wrote more above. I understand this is common practice & I'm sure the less renowned co-authors were only all too happy to have Fauci's name listed on their paper. Nevertheless, I would argue it is a dishonest and corrupting practice, and qualifies by definition as plagiarism if one of the names on the paper literally had no involvement in the work done to produce the paper.
I'm highly confident that for scores (hundreds?) of the publications in question, Fauci contributed zero to the research. If his contribution was simply having a part of funding it, isn't that even more troubling? "Dr. Fauci, we have this grant proposal we'd like you to approve, and of course you will be listed as an author on any subsequent publications."
To me, #2 in your list is legitimate. The value an experienced, senior person in the field can offer even if mainly in a consulting role can be a meaningful contribution to the paper. In my view, the others simply speak to the corruption that is widespread in the academic and research communities.
They got Al Capone on tax evasion. So I can see your point. But where exactly does it say that NIH employees cannot plagarize? I suppose the publications themselves would have to initiate the violations on the part of Fauci to get him in any 'trouble'. I am hoping he falls in a hole, deep hole.