"Scientists working under..NIH grant to..study bat coronaviruses combined..genetic material from a 'parent'..virus..with other viruses. They twice submitted summaries..that showed..three altered..viruses..reproduced far more quickly than..original virus"
"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search."
"All but two of the scientists consulted agreed that, whatever title it is given, the newly public experiment raised serious concerns about the safety and oversight of federally funded research"
"Jesse Bloom: "As a virologist, I personally think creating chimeras of SARS-related bat coronaviruses that are thought to pose high risk to humans entails unacceptable risks""
Jacques van Helden: "The real question is whether or not research has the potential to create or facilitate the selection of viruses that might infect humans. The experiments described in the proposal clearly do have that potential"
Vincent Racaniello: "There’s no question..From the weight loss, it’s gain of function. Tony Fauci is wrong saying it’s not."
"Inside the lungs of the humanized mice, however, the novel viruses..reproduced far more quickly than the original virus that was used to create them..The viral load in the lung tissue of the mice was, at certain points, up to 10,000 times higher..with the altered viruses"
"Another figure in the documents suggests that at least one of the altered viruses not only enhanced viral reproduction, but also caused the humanized mice to lose more weight than those exposed to the original virus — a measure of the severity of illness."
"[T]he Notice of Award the agency issued..said..[i]f any..chimeras show..enhanced virus growth greater than 1 log..the researchers were..to stop all experiments..The enhanced growth of the chimeric..viruses..was..4 log greater..But there are no indications..research was stopped."
"In fact, the bat coronavirus grant was renewed for a five-year period in 2019"
"[T]he documents do not prove Paul’s claim that Fauci was lying, as they do not make clear whether Fauci read them"
"What is clear is that program officers at NIAID, the agency that Fauci oversees, did know about the research."
"A paragraph describing the research, as well as two figures illustrating its results, were included in both a 2018 progress report on the bat coronavirus grant and an application for its 2019 renewal. And NIH confirmed that it reviewed them."
If NIH Director Francis Collins has an interest in self-preservation, he will announce: (1) after re-reviewing documents, he has concluded the grant supported gain of function, (2) his staff failed to note this previously, and (3) measures will be taken to prevent future failures
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
House Select Subcommittee letter to Fauci aide:
"[Y]ou…are…employing dilatory tactics…to…stall your testimony…This appears to be a[n]…attempt to protect…Fauci…and obstruct…investigation…[Y]ou…have left us no choice but to compel your testimony." dailycaller.com/2024/05/08/hou…
"The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic will send a subpoena Wednesday to compel Dr. Anthony Fauci’s senior advisor [and enforcer] at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. David Morens, to testify in a public hearing on May 22"
"Rep. Brad Wenstrup, the chairman of the select subcommittee, will send the subpoena to Morens after the subcommittee recently uncovered evidence that suggests Morens intentionally obstructed their investigations into the origins of COVID-19 to protect Fauci."
The new policy is a step backward from the policies in effect in 2014-2017 and 2018-present, a green light for the reckless research that likely caused COVID-19, a gift to the bioweapons-agents research sector, and a betrayal of the public interest.
The definition of "potential pandemic pathogen" provided in the new policy and implementation guidance is different from the definition in the current policy, is different from the definitions used in all previous policy deliberations, and is, basically, nonsensical.
Example 1: The implementation guidance for the new policy states, nonsensically, that SARS-CoV-2--a pathogen that currently is causing a pandemic--does not meet the definition of "potential pandemic pathogen."
The definition of "potential pandemic pathogen" provided in the implementation guidance for the new policy is different from the definition in the current policy, is different from the definitions in all previous policy deliberations, and, basically, is nonsensical.
Example 1: The implementation guidance for the new policy states, nonsensically, that SARS-CoV-2--a pathogen that currently is causing a pandemic--does not meet the definition of "potential pandemic pathogen."
Example 2: The implementation guidance for the new policy states, nonsensically, that Ebola virus does not meet the definition of "potential pandemic pathogen."
The newly announced US-government policy on dual-use research of concern and potential pandemic pathogen research is complex and convoluted, essentially guaranteeing failure.
The federal policies in effect in 2014-2017 and 2018-present were simple and had clear definitions. Nevertheless, researchers and research administrators--including Daszak, Fauci, and Collins--malfeasantly violated those policies by misrepresenting definitions in the polices.
The new policy is absurdly complex and has opaque, confusing, and self-contradictory definitions. Malfeasant researchers and research administrators will be able to violate the new policy at will and with impunity.
@Rebecca21951651 @ScienceInsider @NIHDirector Correct. The complexity of the new policy essentially guarantees failure and essentially guarantees inability to oversee, verify, and enforce compliance.
@Rebecca21951651 @ScienceInsider @NIHDirector The federal policies in effect in 2014-2017 and 2018-present were simple and had clear definitions. Nevertheless, researchers and research administrators--including Daszak, Fauci, Collins, and Tabak--violated those policies by misrepresenting definitions in those polices.
@Rebecca21951651 @ScienceInsider @NIHDirector The new policy is absurdly complex and has opaque, confusing, and self-contradictory definitions. Malfeasant researchers and research administrators will be able to violate the new policy at will and with impunity.
"Today we know that the poisonous atmosphere around the lab-leak question was deliberately created by Anthony Fauci and…scientists involved in dangerous research at the Wuhan lab…[T]he case for banning gain-of-function research has never been stronger."
"During the first two years of the pandemic, most mainstream media outlets barely mentioned the lab-leak debate. And when they did, they generally savaged both the idea and anyone who took it seriously."
"Richard Ebright, professor of chemical biology at Rutgers…, is a longtime critic of gain-of-function research…From the early weeks of the pandemic, he suspected…the virus had leaked from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. Evidence increasingly suggests…he was correct."