Thank You, Dr. Fauci (2024) is a new documentary arguing, among other things:
SARS-CoV-2 includes engineered HIV inserts
SARS-CoV-2 includes an engineered sequence from a Moderna patent
Lyme disease started as a lab leak
The Ebola virus disease outbreak in 2014 started as a lab leak
HIV started as a lab leak
These are all false. See the review here for details and references: https://www.the-gallop.com/from-fauci-to-fiction-doc-promises-covid-origins-delivers-hiv-lies/
Note that this review isn't comprehensive about errors in the movie.
"Strongly protest" is obviously subjective. My reference point here is the letter written by scientists who protested the film House of Numbers (2009) which took their words out of context in some cases to argue that HIV doesn't exist and so on. The letter they wrote is offline at its original URL, but available via the Wayback Machine here: https://web.archive.org/web/20130721033023/http://www.sitemason.com/files/lDjTYQ/House%20of%20Numbers%20Letter.pdf
Here's an excerpt from that letter:
The reality is that his film does none of those things. Instead, it presents the AIDS denialist agenda as being a legitimate scientific perspective on HIV/AIDS, when it is no such thing. His film perpetuates pseudo-science and myths.
AIDS denialists individually or collectively promote several notions that have nobasis in science or the facts. Among these views are that HIV either does not exist or is harmless; that therapies for HIV infection are themselves the cause of AIDS; that drug abuse causes AIDS; that HIV was created by the US government to kill Africans and African-Americans as an act of genocide; that diagnostic tests for HIV infection do not work. None of these beliefs is true.
So the question is whether any of the scientists featured in Thank You, Dr. Fauci will do something similar, having featured in the movie and its promotional material; several of them have promoted the movie since its release.
Update 2025-03-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Resolution Criteria:
The creator will not be making any predictions to resolve this market due to the subjective nature of the criteria.
1,000
3.00Feels like Redfield is a tentative yes, while everyone else is likely no. According to the article (which is currently the only source of information I have), Redfield's interview was significantly manipulated, while other 'scientists' simply stated bullsh*t rhetoric during interviews, in contrast to the medical experts in House of Numbers, whose interviews were also significantly manipulated:
As in House of Numbers, Redfield gets the last word in TYDF. And, again, his words are twisted to suit the narrative of the film. Elsewhere in TYDF, Redfield says, "We have a right to make mistakes, but where I get upset is if we don't acknowledge our mistakes so we don't make the same mistake next time."
@Gameknight I can see why it feels that way from what’s in the review. My take on Redfield is that he’ll say whatever’s good for Redfield.
Redfield’s personal lab leak theory is quite a bit different from the one in the movie (he’s gone into more detail elsewhere, to the extent you can go into the details of his nonsensical theory).