Thread by @ErrataRob

This is a good example of the political bias of the media: Paul's accusations may be wrong, but they are clearly "substantiated". That was the entire point of the exchange, forcing Fauci to respond directly to well-substantiated facts. thehill.com/policy/healthc…

Rand Paul may still be wrong. That isn't the issue here. The issue is substantiation. In the hearing, Rand Paul clearly substantiated his claims, citing this specific study:
journals.plos.org/plospathogens/…

Rand Paul claims the paper including the specific NIH grant number where they got their funding, which is NIAID R01AI110964.
reporter.nih.gov/project-detail…

Rand Paul claims all the work was done at the Wuhan lab. I can't find anything in the paper that specifically substantiates that claim, though it seems obvious by the content, and nobody seems to disagree with this fact (it's not the point of contention).

So everyone agrees that this was a Wuhan study that included NIH funding. The point of disagreement is whether it was "gain of function". This is the section under contention:

This means they created new viruses in the lab (WIV1-Rs4231S and WIV1-Rs7327S) and then tested how well they'd infect human (HeLa) cells. Is this "gain-of-function"? Rand Paul seems to think it is. Here's a definition of "gain-of-function" to read:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain-of-f…

But it's more complicated than that. The "ban on gain-of-function" doesn't use the term "gain-of-function". It says:

Are the rescued chimeric SARSr-CoVs, WIV1-Rs4231S and WIV1-Rs7327S created by the experiment "reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility an/or pathogenicity". My guess is probably not.

What "gain-of-function" usually means is techniques that deliberately increase transmissibility/pathogenicity. The above test didn't -- it created new viruses where that may have been the accidental side effect, but that wasn't the goal.

My own opinion is that both Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci are liars in this exchange. They have a ball in the middle between them and are both trying to spin the facts in their direction.

The point of this thread isn't which side is correct, only "substantiation". Whether Rand Paul's accusations are correct or not, they are certainly well substantiated. Both side agree on the same facts, just different interpretations.