This is Part III in an in-depth series on Fauci’s lies.
Part I is available here. Part II is here.
Obama Administration forced a halt in funding gain-of-function research at all US government agencies. Despite this order, Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Anthony Fauci and the NIAID continued to fund and conduct the research at both the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the US.
View the detailed discussion video:
The field of gain-of function research was just beginning in 2011. Its discovery was touted as a game-changer in the world of bacterial, viral, and cancer treatments, as scientists and researchers thought they had found a way to “program” cells and viruses to do specialized tasks, therefore creating the pathway to cures for all sorts of different infections and diseases. Actually, these estimates are accurate and gain of function research, despite all the potential risks, deserves a place within medical science. That place, as I have contended, just shouldn’t be at a Chinese Government Lab.
The medical and scientific communities expressed concerns about gain-of-function research, even in its initial stages. They also questioned whether it was a good idea to conduct that type of research. Gain-of-function research can manipulate the DNA of viruses, which is what is known as the “Dual Use Research of Concern”. In other words, gain-of-function experiments are dual-use: They can either create treatments and therapies for medical use, or they can create weaponized viral pathogens that countries could use to wipe out a population. This is what scientists are most concerned about.
Fauci and Collins published an editorial in the Washington Post December 2011 in response to public concern. This article was nearly ten years old. The op-ed used certain language to support the dangerous research, which may be familiar. The main concern was with research on influenza viruses, but the op–ed also addressed research on SARS viruses. These are excerpts taken from the op-ed.
“Should this virus mutate in a way that allows it to be transmitted as efficiently among people as seasonal influenza viruses are, it could take an unprecedented toll on human life.”
“Understanding the biology of influenza virus transmission has implications for outbreak prediction, prevention and treatment. In defining the mutations required for mammalian transmission, public health officials are provided with genetic signatures that, like fingerprints, could help scientists more readily identify newly emergent, potentially harmful viruses, track their spread and detect threatening outbreaks.”
“Identifying threatening viruses can also facilitate the early stages of manufacturing vaccines that protect against such a virus in advance of an outbreak.”
(As an aside: If those justifications and language sound familiar to you, that’s because they are. The exact same thing is stated in EcoHealth Alliance Grant description. Strange, isn’t it, that justifications for gain-of-function research were used in a research proposal for experiments that, according to Fauci, aren’t gain-of-function? We know that this research actually matched the other gain-of function research and created a chimericvirus that was later identified as an Enhanced Potential Pathogen.
Scientists raised concerns, but the researchers continued to research. This was primarily because the experiment was done on ferrets which reduces the chance of the disease spreading to humans. Yoshihiro Kuwaka of University of Wisconsin was the one most worried, as well as Ron Fouchier from Erasmus University in The Netherlands. Papers published by them in 2012 raised concerns again for scientists. The research that was done did not consider whether viruses developed for ferrets might also be spread to humans. To put into perspective the serious nature of what was occurring with Fouchier’s research, the Dutch government banned the export of his research and labeled it as the “exporting of weapons technology.”
As a result of the Kawaoka/Fouchier experiments, Fauci was called before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to explain the NIH’s policy on this “Dual Use Research of Concern.” Fauci’s testimony at that hearing was exactly what you expect it would be: nebulous froth that offered little depth and instead stated that the benefits so far outweighed the risks that the NIH determined it was necessary to continue.
From Fauci’s testimony:
Because of NIAID’s lead Federal role in supporting and conducting biodefense and emerging infectious diseases research, it can be expected that NIAID has funded and will fund some measure of DURC within its research portfolio. Whether a specific research experiment has been designated as DURC is not a reason to ban it or avoid publishing. Contrary to popular belief, it is important that we balance the public’s health and biosafety concerns with the risk of knowledge being misused.
Then, there’s always the next:
These were just a few of the many questions Drs. These are the questions Drs. Fouchier, Kawaoka, and Fouchier have been asking in their highly publicized research that is what we’re discussing. Understanding the mechanism by which influenza epidemics can be predicted, prevented, diagnosed, treated, or controlled could help to predict and prevent future outbreaks. A virus with enhanced animal transmissibility would, for example.
Models would be sensitive to anti-influenza drugs, but they could also become intolerant of immune reactions elicited from vaccines. For global monitoring of pandemic flu viruses, it may prove crucial to have a clear understanding of the genetic variants and set of mutations that allow for influenza transmission.(*)(
Again, the NIH states that viral pathogen prediction was made and projected by genetic manipulation of virus and gain-of function experiments.(*()The University of North Carolina’s Dr. Ralph Baric was conducting gain-of function research at the time on SARS-type viruses. Baric worked largely with samples from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Dr. Shi Zhengli, one of its leading researchers. Baric’s and Shi’s research was analyzing the outbreak potential of SARS-type bat coronaviruses collected from caves in the Yunnan Province in China.SARS gains-of function research was then conducted in 2013, 2014 with human epithelial cells. This is the cell type found in human airways. It’s the cells most infected when viruses cause infection. These cells were infected by the genetically modified and chimeric viruses. This time didn’t just raise red flags. The scientific community was then alerted by air-raid sirens. They demanded that the US Government take immediate action, as they were the principal funders and supporter of their research.
Obama Administration issued an immediate halt to all research and funding that included gain-of function experiments on SARS and influenza. This was until the government can develop and enforce new guidelines that could allow for research. HHS wrote to every recipient of grants funding for gain-of-function to announce the pause, and to order the end of any experiments, while guidelines are published.
The NIH released a statement by Director Francis Collins on October 16, 2014 regarding the pause. It stated that they would honor the request for a pause in this type of research.
These studies have been funded by the NIH because they provide insight into the basic nature of human-pathogen interactions and enable assessment of potential pandemic risk from emerging infectious agents. They also inform public health preparedness and planning efforts. However, these studies also have biosafety risks and need to be better understood. NIH will be adhering to this funding pause until the robust and broad deliberative process described by the White House — including consultation with the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) and input from the National Research Council of the National Academies — is completed.
During this pause, NIH will not provide new funding for any projects involving these experiments and encourages those currently conducting this type of work — whether federally funded or not — to voluntarily pause their research while the government determines how to proceed.
The pending risk of accidentally creating a pandemic virus seemed to have been avoided, for the time being, with the NIH’s pause of gain-of-function funding and experiments.
Except for one problem: They didn’t stop funding and conducting them.
RedState’s in-depth coverage of the Wuhan Lab Leak Potential has led me to identify no less than three researches that the NIH (led by Fauci), funded. These studies were either called gain-of function experiments or labeled as such. The two experiments that Dr. Ralph Baric conducted specifically addressed the fact that although the research was banned, it was allowed to be continued by the NIH/NIAID. Two disclosures are from the Baric study, one from 2015 and one for 2016.
NIH Approves GOF
SHC014 Disclosure to the GoF
Since prediction of viruses is an integral part of virus pathogen projection and prediction, the experiments had to always have gain-of functionality.
- Collins and Fauci both described the requirement for gain-of function as a way to project and predict emerging pathogens.
- EcoHealth Alliance was able to receive three disbursements for the subject study during the years 2015, 2016 and 2017. These totaled more than 1.8million dollars. Although some might argue that research was not conducted in those years, the disbursements were similar to those received years prior to the pause as well as after research resumed under the new framework.
- NIH – EcoHealth Alliance Funding
So what is this all about? Well, while Fauci, Collins, and their respective agencies have been adamant about the fact that no gain-of-function research was authorized outside of the “framework” instituted by the Department of Health and Human Services, we know, as proved above by the images from NIH published studies, that they absolutely did authorize that banned type of research. The EcoHealth Alliance grant for gain-of function experiments was funded despite Fauci, Collins, and their false and misleading claims to the contrary. Documents and records also show that funding continued during the pause for research.
About Post Author
