Political nausea and headaches

Anthony Fauci has revealed that nausea and a splitting headache are two common symptoms of talking to Rand Paul.

The esteemed virologist disclosed that he had taken part in a clinical study that required him to converse with the senator from Kentucky several times in a one-year period…

“After thirty seconds of him talking, bam, it hits you,” he said. “You have to lie down in a dark room someplace.”

To avoid these symptoms, Fauci recommended social distancing from Paul “as much as possible.”


7 thoughts on “Political nausea and headaches

  1. Mark says:

    Sorry Mr Eiderd. Even a douche like Rand Paul is right some of the time. Classic tactic by Fauci. If you can’t or won’t address the substance of an argument, go ad hominem.

    On the matter of gain of function research, Fauci is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.

    To quote Josh Rogin, who did some excellent reporting in this area – “Rand Paul and Fauci are arguing over whether the bat coronavirus research in Wuhan was “gain of function” according to the NIH definition. That’s somewhat besides the point of whether the research is risky or not (it is).”

    • eideard says:

      Article is satire, fiction, by Borowitz, Little red letters above the headline when you click through to the article. :-]

      But, your comment is worthwhile.

      • Mark says:

        Hah! No worries. Should have picked up on that.

        Been following the lab leak story for a while now and my nose is hyper sensitive to bullshit. The lab leak, although still hypothetical, is still the covid origin hypothesis that makes the most sense. The problem being that a lab leak implicates the GOUSA as much as it does the Chinese, so the truth is being buried nice and deep.

        • eideard says:

          Used to know a number of folks in medical research labs BITD in New Haven, CT …. the Yale University medical community. I worked at Yale/NH Hospital. Nothing medical; but, everyone in a venue knows everyone else. Been chatting with the few folks I still know back there and they’re 99+% confident of wild-jumping-to-domestic animal or human transmission. A more common pathway than folks realize.

          When you think about many Asian cultures, not only Chinese, where eating “wild” has all sorts of absurd cultural reasons, it wouldn’t seem at all out of the ordinary to me. Cripes, I recall the start of hunting season back in New England … it was like someone threw @ brain switch in some of my neighbors … and they turned into their favorite frontier movie character. Armed and ready. It’s a wonder we never picked up some weird deer disease. :-]

  2. Mark says:

    Entirely possible that covid came in from the wild. However, I don’t know how someone can be 99.9% confident of something without any evidence. A couple of things that weigh against the wild hypothesis

    1. Normally its fairly easy to trace the wild origins of a virus back to the originating animals. Oddly enough, no-one has been able to do this with covid.
    2. The covid virus itself is extremely well adapted to human transmission. This level of adaption would have to have gone though an number of evolutionary leaps in order for the virus to learn the trick of extreme transmission in humans. This suggests either ‘gain of function’ evolutionary acceleration in a lab or that the virus was doing the rounds long before it was officially announced and had time to evolve and learn the trick.

    Contrast this to the circumstantial evidence of a lab leak.

    1. There is a virology lab very close to the market that is recognised as covid ground zero. This lab was studying bat viruses and it is known that gain of function research is (or was) conducted there. Incidentally, gain of function research was suspended by the Obama administration and resumed under the Trump administration.
    2. Viruses have been known to escape labs such as Wuhan.
    3. Safety concerns were flagged against the Wuhan lab in 2018 by the US State Department.

    Both of these origins are plausible IMHO.

    • eideard says:


      Wander through the intro and beyond from this lot. I know one of them from New England days and he says the whole crew are rock solid types. They aren’t listed as majority opinion because – reading from the only one I know – nobody wants to commit to analysis for a majority opinion for another year or two. Safety in numbers, I guess.

      Everything is plausible. I guess living in Cold War headquarters nation, I get skeptical when analyses echo the State Department.

      We have numbnuts here on the lunatic fringe who even want to prove how easy peasy they think they can replicate the lab origin process. Which means another custom-tailored strain might be “discovered” some day.

  3. Mark says:

    The lunatic fringe are largely claiming that the virus was CREATED in a lab and/or deliberately released by the Chinese using 5G pangolins or some other nutty bollocks. It is not the same thing as an accidental leak of a virus that has been lab enhanced for research purposes (ie. gain of function).

    The NIH have skin in the game, having funded the Wuhan lab and I’m sure would be as keen on damage limitation as the Chinese are on loss of prestige.Add to that the division caused by that idiot Trump and his ‘Chinah Virus’ means that liberals and democrats are keen to distance themselves from anything that seems remotely like agreeing with Donald and insulating themselves from the social and professional repercussions of that opinion.

    A recent letter to Science (14th May 2021) from prominent scientists and virologists urges reconsideration of the validity of a lab leak hypothesis in the wake of a biased and half-assed investigation.


    “As scientists with relevant expertise, we agree with the WHO director-general (5), the United States and 13 other countries (6), and the European Union (7) that greater clarity about the origins of this pandemic is necessary and feasible to achieve. We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. A proper investigation should be transparent, objective, data-driven, inclusive of broad expertise, subject to independent oversight, and responsibly managed to minimize the impact of conflicts of interest. Public health agencies and research laboratories alike need to open their records to the public. Investigators should document the veracity and provenance of data from which analyses are conducted and conclusions drawn, so that analyses are reproducible by independent experts.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.