Fun facts courtesy of Fauci:
By mid-Feb 2020 an “ad hoc” group of experts “informally led by Jeremy Farrar” had been meeting to look at “coronavirus sequences to . . . determine the evolutionary origin.” Also per Fauci, this sort of thing “is not [his] area of expertise.” LOL 1/
Fortunately, Farrar decided to include Fauci in this “ad hoc” group (despite admitted lack of expertise), and now we have his (heavily redacted) emails. (Thanks FOIA!) Farrar’s first act as informal leader (that we know of) was to organize a teleconference on Feb. 1, 2020. 3/
“Information and discussion is shared in total confidence and not to be shared until agreement on next steps.”
Bold opening statement, especially considering it went to top public health officials from the US & UK (Fauci & Vallance) as C-19 was spreading rapidly within both. 4/
Fauci committed perjury. @randpaul called him out, citing NIH-funded gain-of-function work by Ralph Baric, Shi, et al., in which a synthetic infectious SHC014 recombinant virus was created.
Fauci: "ThAtS nOt GoF!"
Ralph Baric: "It was actually a chimeric gain-of-function virus."
The idea that the Baric, Shi, et al. paper does not include GoF research is laughable. Fauci’s just betting no one will actually read the damn thing, and he’s probably right.
What are the odds it was Fauci himself that saved the pdf file as “Baric, Shi et al - Nature medicine - SARS Gain of function” before attaching it and sending along to Hugh? 👀
@CalebJHull Fauci sent Hugh Auchincloss the same paper @RandPaul referenced at the hearing today via email on Feb 1, 2020. The name of the attachment: “Baric, Shi et al - Nature medicine - SARS Gain of function.pdf” 1/
@CalebJHull@RandPaul Auchincloss’s reply a few hours later is also telling. “The paper you sent me says the experiments were performed before the gain of function pause but have since been reviewed and approved by NIH.” 2/
@CalebJHull@RandPaul Neither Fauci nor Auchincloss seem concerned that the experiments with the chimeric SH014 recombinant viruses had been wrongly classified as “gain of function” in the paper, and no corrections to the Acknowledgments section were ever made. 3/