His "lifetime achievement" is to be complicit in the deaths of 15 million people.  Who was his competition?  Dr. Mengele? 

   Absolutely frightening !!  15 million huh? - all his?
Next, we can bait the trap with 1000 personal papers from Anti Vaxx Sen Paul and drag those before Congress.
I wonder how many bodies he would score.

Sen. Hawley displayed their emails doing so during the hearing.  Paul released the emails:  https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/7.24.2026_Fauci-Awards_FINAL_REDACTED.pdf

You need a better copy of these personal assumptions - the document you posted is illegible.

Posting unconfirmed BS without proof. - Doesn't mean very much.

He did not solicit the award.
It was lifetime achievement award.
He certainly deserved it  - having expertly handled infectious diseases since 1984.

  You don't agree with that then show some kind of proof he "stole" or illegally solicited it.
You have provided nothing

His "lifetime achievement" is to be complicit in the deaths of 15 million people.  Who was his competition?  Dr. Mengele?  He solicited these awards and directed his staff to assist on his behalf.  Sen. Hawley displayed their emails doing so during the hearing.  Paul released the emails:  https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/7.24.2026_Fauci-Awards_FINAL_REDACTED.pdf

What's your point?

Lance Payette and you are mistaken if you think that the woman on the left in the post-assassination Darnel frame is Gloria Calvery, or that the sobbing light-haired woman to the right of her is Calvery.

Those two women are self-described American Indian Stella Mae Jacob and Gloria Jeanne Holt, respectively, and the third woman to the right of them is their headscarf-wearing colleague at South-Western Publishing Company, Sharon Simmons, not Karen "Ditzy" Westbrook.

The reason Jacob, Holt and Simmons were misidentified from behind in Zapruder as "Calvery, Hicks, and Reed" for so many years is because they mistakenly told the FBI that they were standing on the south side of Elm Street, when in fact they were standing on the north side -- "near" the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Westbrook is the tallish, light-colored-headscarf-wearing woman three women to the left of big-tall, dark-blue-blouse-and-dark-blue-headscarf-wearing Calvery in Zapruder. She was mislabeled as "Jane Berry" by Robin Unger and Don Roberdeau back in the day.

(Ya gotta scroll down to the labeled-in-yellow Zapruder frame.)

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23565-were-tsbd-employees-jacob-holt-and-simmons-misidentified-as-calvery-hicks-and-reed/page/6/

Get it, Storm Trooper Storing?

Contrary to what Fancy Prancer Rants and Stormtrooper Storing think [sic], the women in this Darnell frame are not, from left to right, "Uhh ... I'm not sure," Gloria Calvert [sic], and ditzy Karen Westbrook, but self-described American Indian Stella Mae Jacob, strawberry-blond Gloria Jeanne Holt, and blue-headscarf-wearing Sharon Simmons.

Unfortunately, they mistakenly told the FBI (or one of them did and the FBI agent created a boiler-plate template for the other two to sign) that they were standing on the south side of Elm Street during the motorcade.

Factoid: They were standing on the north side of Elm Street, as can be seen in the Zapruder film where they're standing "next to" the Stemmons Freeway sign.

D'oh!

    You're babbling. What's your point?

Given that you can't speak English at a high-school level, and given how many times you've been caught committing inexcusable gaffes, it is remarkable that you consider yourself competent to be judging anyone else's arguments, much less mine. {/quote]

You're never funnier than when you put on your Mr. Smarty Pants act.

All I have to do is be more competent than you which isn't a very high bar to clear.

Quote

LOL! Uh, so the autopsy doctors were "totally unqualified to render judgments about the medical evidence"?! Sheesh, did you just skim over those paragraphs and miss the citation of the autopsy doctors?! Your replies are just one clown show after another.

When I saw MTG quote half a sentence, I figured he was quoting me out of context, but i had to go back and see what I had written to see if he had misrepresentd what I wrote. He had.

This is what MTG said and my reply:

MTG: Five autopsy witnesses -- Sibert, O'Neill, Lipsey, Stringer, and Kellerman -- said the rear head entry wound was near the EOP or the hairline. The three autopsy doctors insisted to their dying days that the EOP site was correct.

ME: Not surprising that a person totally unqualified to render judgements about the medical evidence would cite other people totally unqualified to render judgements about the medical evidence.

The five witnesses were clearly not qualified to render judgements about medical evidence and the unqualified person that I was referring to that cited them was MTG himself. A real buffoon. A legend in his own mind.

Quote

.



Dr. Joseph Riley was "totally unqualified" to talk about the medical evidence?! Really?! Dr. Riley was a highly respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and neuropathology. His neuroscience research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York.

When did I say he was unqualified? Hint: NEVER.

Dr. David Mantik is "totally unqualified" to talk about the medical evidence?!

Yes he is. He is an oncologist. That's a cancer doctor. No qualifications to render judgements about forensic medical issues. MTG thinks anybody with "Dr." in front of their name is an expert on all things related to the medical evidence. He'd probably cite Dr. Jill Biden if she expressed skepticism about the autopsy findings or the FPP review 

He has viewed the autopsy materials at the National Archives more often than any other medical expert, 29 times in all, and has been studying the medical evidence longer than any other medical expert who has written about the JFK case. He is one of only three medical experts who have done optical-density (OD) measurements on the autopsy skull x-rays, and he has done more OD measurements than either of the two other experts. He's board-certified in radiation oncology, licensed in radiology, holds a doctorate in physics, and is a former professor of physics at the University of Michigan.

Good for him. Did he discuss his findings with any actual forensic medical examiners or did he just wing it and offer his own conclusions? FYI. If JFK had died of cancer, Mantik would have had the expertise to comment on it. He actually died of a gunshot wound to the head. Maybe Mantik had one or two patients over the years who were in such pain that they decided to put a bullet in their head, but that would be the closest Mantik ever got to a victim of a gunshot.

And Dr. Larry Sturdivan, who was the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant, is "totally unqualified" to talk about the medical evidence?! He worked as a physical scientist at the Wound Ballistics Branch of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds for years. You realize that Sturdivan is a lone-gunman theorist, right? You know this, right?

I never said Sturdivan was "totally unqualified". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and chalk it up to your rather poor reading comprehension instead of a bald faced lie by you. MTG seems to think that when I call him unqualified, I am also referring to the people he has cited. Only some of those people are unqualified.

Ah, but here's the problem with Sturdivan for your side: He has admitted that the 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment and that no FMJ bullet would ever deposit a fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entry. Those are two devastating admissions that your side just can't stomach.

So he doesn't think the 6.5mm is a fragments. What does he think it is and tell us the significance of that.

Virtually every word of this dodge is false. Drs. Mantik, Chesser, Aguilar, and McClellan have seen the autopsy photos and x-rays at the National Archives. Moreover, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that several decent copies of the autopsy photos became available in 1981 (i.e., from the Fox Set) and that the HSCA released decent copies of the autopsy x-rays in 1978.

Mantik is unqualified for reasons I have already stated. Gary Aguilar has been posting kooky stuff on forums for as long as you have. I remember his crap from the Prodigy forum back in the early 1990s. For those who don't know, Gary Aguilar is an ophthalmologist from San Francisco. As far as I know, he is very good at his job. That hardly qualifies him as an expert in forensic medicine. But he has a "Dr." in front of his name and that is good enough for MTG.

Dr. Chessar is a neurologist who believes JFK sustained a frontal entry wound. Being a neurologist does not qualify him to distinguish entry wounds from exit wounds. Again, MTG cites someone who is outside their area of expertise. That's because every forensic medical examiner who has seen the medical evidence agrees with the original finding that JFK was shot in the back of the head. 

Dr. Robert McClelland (not McClellan) was a surgeon who was summoned to the ER at Parkland. JFK was only in the ER a short time before being pronounced dead. In that short time, most of the efforts were at maintaining JFK's vital signs in what I'm sure they realized right away was a losing battle. JFK was on his back the whole time and the head wound was never treated. In the Z-film we see a large flap of skull was hanging down the right side of JFK's head but no one at Parkland  noticed that which indicates Jackie had probably closed that flaps as best she could but couldn't close the hole in the back of his head because that piece had been blown away. Since they never examined the head wound at Parkland, It's easy to understand why they would have thought the blowout was confined to the back of the head when in fact i involved the entire upper right side of his head.

The following passage from McClelland's WC testimony is most telling:
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything to add which you think might be helpful in any way to the Commission?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No; I think not except again to emphasize perhaps that some of our statements to the press about the nature of the wound may have been misleading, possibly--probably ,because of our fault in tolling it in such a way that they misinterpreted our certainty of being able to tell entrance from exit wounds, which as we say, we generally can make an educated guess about these things but cannot be certain about them. I think they attributed too much certainty to us about that.

By his own admission, McClelland said the impressions of the nature of JFK's wounds were educated guesses, which do not trump the findings of either the original autopsy team, or the FFP review.

You again ignore the fact that Dr. Michael Baden, the FPP chairman, admitted to Vincent Bugliosi in a recorded interview that the autopsy brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing brain tissue, and that this fact has been confirmed by Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser, both of whom examined the brain photos at the National Archives. 

So?

Let me remind you that the autopsy doctors saw the actual head wounds in person, and handled the skull and the skull fragments with their own hands, whereas the FPP doctors could only rely on an incomplete set of autopsy photos and x-rays.

This is really laughable. They saw far more and better photos than you have ever seen as well as the original x-rays, have far more training and expierience in forensic medicine than you will ever have, yet you think you car capable of making a better judgement about the nature of JFK's wounds than the FPP. It doesn't get more ridiculous than that.

The FPP doctors did not see "all" the photos and x-rays because we know for an absolute fact that a number of photos and x-rays are missing from the extant collection of autopsy materials.

They saw a hell of a lot more than you and they knew a hell of a lot more than you.

If you're now back-pedaling to the view that the FPP was correct about the location of the rear head entry wound ("So who should we believe? MTG or the FPP?"), then you need to explain how the brain tissue directly under the cowlick site is undamaged in the autopsy photos, a fact confirmed by WC apologist Dr. Robert Artwohl when he viewed the autopsy materials at the National Archives. You need to deal with the fact that the FPP, like the Clark Panel, relocated the entry wound up to the cowlick site based on the now-debunked assumption that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment that was deposited in the outer table of the skull as the bullet entered the skull. You need to deal with the fact that nobody at the autopsy reported seeing an entry wound in the cowlick area, that every single witness who commented on the wound's location said it was much farther down on the skull, near the EOP/hairline.

I really don't care whether the autopsy team or the FPP accurately placed the entrance wound, they both agree that JFK was shot in the back of the head which fits with all the other available forensic evidence, the fragmented bullet found in the limo which had been fired by the same rifle that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD and which had also fired the spent shells found at the location where several witnesses spotted the shooter. Given these facts, it's comical that people treat the assassination as if it is a mystery.

I notice you made no attempt to explain how the brain photos could be authentic when the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, a fact first noticed way back in 1975 by Dr. Fred Hodges, one of the leading radiologists in the world at the time, a fact later also confirmed by Humes himself in 1992, and when multiple sets of OD measurements have proven that 2/3 of the right brain is missing in the skull x-rays.

Unlike you, I know how to stay in my lane. I don't assume that reading some kook conspiracy books somehow makes me qualified to interpret the medical evidence. I leave that to the people with actual expertise.

I notice you also ducked the fact that numerous eyewitnesses saw brain matter from JFK's brain on 16 surfaces, and that Jackie Kennedy brought a "large chunk of brain" into the Parkland ER and handed it to Dr. Jenkins, a fact that even Bugliosi did not dispute. I guess even you realize it would be discrediting and hilarious for you to claim that all that brain matter added up to no more than 2 ounces.

I don't recall ever making such a claim. I don't recall even thinking that. Please cite where I wrote that.

Perhaps you lack the capacity to grasp the obvious fact that the brain photos cannot be authentic because the skull x-rays show 2/3 of the right brain to be missing and because so much brain tissue was blown from JFK's brain, but you only make yourself look foolish and disingenuous when you float your flim-flam about needing "years of medical training" to understand this fact.

I'm not the dipshit who thinks he can interpret the medica evidence based on a handful of leaked photos and x-rays.

You don't need "years of medical training" to understand that a brain with less than 1-2 ounces of missing tissue cannot be the same brain (1) that is missing 2/3 of its substance on its righthand side in the skull x-rays, (2) that had pieces of tissue blown from it that fell onto 16 surfaces, and (3) that had a "large chunk" blown from it that was handed to Dr. Jenkins by Jackie Kennedy.

Furthermore, medical experts, i.e., people who have "years of medical training," have pointed out that the brain photos cannot be authentic for the above-mentioned reasons.

Medical experts? You mean like oncologists or ophthalmologists. Or did you get that from a gynecologist?

I notice you said nothing, not one word, about the OD measurements of the skull x-rays, about Dr. Hodges' finding that the x-rays show a large part of the right brain to be missing, about Dr. Humes's statement to JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away, and about the numerous eyewitness accounts of a large amount of brain tissue being blown from JFK's brain.

Just what could I contribute? [quoote]

Yeah, uh-huh. You bet. Too bad for you and your ducking and dodging that so many medical experts have likewise observed that the brain photos cannot be authentic given that the skull x-rays show 2/3 of the right brain to be missing and given the large amount of brain tissue that numerous witnesses saw blown from JFK's brain.
[/quote]

Funny how the FPP never came to that conclusion. Just a lot of guys who don't know how to stay in their lane. Guys like you.