This was hashed out in another thread about the topic. This guy is a seemingly good guy that was pushing ivermectin was a cure for covid19. He sent this to Fauci as a way to troll him it would seem.
We still have a lot of digging to do before jumping to conclusions on things.
From an IT forensics point of view, it is not only a smoking gun, but completely relevent and over the mark.
It takes a lot to prove he didnt read it. Its like receiving a certified letter and finding it open on the table. You really gonna go with the story you signed for it, opened it, removed the contents, but never actually read it? That doesnt fly in court.
Why is it relevant if fauci did or did not read it? Genuine question.. this was sent by a random citizen and it’s just copied and pasted text from a treatment study, as other comments in this thread have pointed out.
Did not see the comments about that. If it was from a random, it then depends on filters, among other things.
Emails are simple, but they have a lot going on.
Email is reasonably assumed to have been read in general, unless it can be proven to have been put directly in junk/spam/trash by filters. There are read receipts, internal policies, all kinds of considerations.
This was hashed out in another thread about the topic. This guy is a seemingly good guy that was pushing ivermectin was a cure for covid19. He sent this to Fauci as a way to troll him it would seem.
We still have a lot of digging to do before jumping to conclusions on things.
yeah, people need to stop getting excited over this one. It's meaningless if Fauci didn't acknowledge it.
From an IT forensics point of view, it is not only a smoking gun, but completely relevent and over the mark.
It takes a lot to prove he didnt read it. Its like receiving a certified letter and finding it open on the table. You really gonna go with the story you signed for it, opened it, removed the contents, but never actually read it? That doesnt fly in court.
Why is it relevant if fauci did or did not read it? Genuine question.. this was sent by a random citizen and it’s just copied and pasted text from a treatment study, as other comments in this thread have pointed out.
Did not see the comments about that. If it was from a random, it then depends on filters, among other things.
Emails are simple, but they have a lot going on.
Email is reasonably assumed to have been read in general, unless it can be proven to have been put directly in junk/spam/trash by filters. There are read receipts, internal policies, all kinds of considerations.