Coronavirus

Is Anthony Fauci Lying About NIH Funding of Wuhan Lab Research? Or Is Rand Paul?

Inside the dispute over gain-of-function research.

|

At a U.S. Senate hearing earlier this week, Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) accused Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, of lying about research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) using funds provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Reminding Fauci that "it is a crime to lie Congress," Paul invited him to retract statements made at a May 2021 hearing "where you claimed that the NIH never funded gains-of-function research in Wuhan." Later in the hearing, Paul further asserted that Fauci was "trying to obscure responsibility for 4 million people dying around the world from a pandemic." Paul added, "All the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab, and there will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, including yourself."

After a testy exchange, Fauci retorted, "If anybody is lying here, senator, it is you."

What is not in dispute is that the NIH did provide $600,000 to the WIV, funneled through the EcoHealth Alliance research group, to study the risk that more bat-borne coronaviruses, like the 2003 outbreak of the SARS virus, would emerge in China. What is in contention is whether the NIH grant funded gain-of-function research at the WIV, and the entirely separate question of whether or not the COVID-19 coronavirus originated in that laboratory.

To unpack these more complicated questions, let's start by defining gain-of-function research. A 2014 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy memo defines gain-of-function studies as those that "aim to increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility." As evidence that the NIH had funded just such studies at the WIV, Paul cited a 2017 study in which WIV researchers reported recombining several bat coronaviruses to check how easily the modified viruses might be able to infect human cells. In their article, the Chinese researchers thanked the NIH for its support of the research.

Those Chinese researchers took the known WIV1 coronavirus, the spike proteins of which already give it the ability to infect human cells using the ACE2 receptor, and then replaced it with spike proteins from newly discovered bat coronaviruses. The goal was to see if the spike proteins from the novel coronaviruses would be sufficient to replace the function of the WIV1 spike protein. The researchers found that two versions of the WIV1 virus modified with the novel spike proteins could still use the ACE2 receptor to infect and replicate in human cells in culture.

Is this gain-of-function research? To some extent, this controversy is somewhat reminiscent of President Bill Clinton's notorious sophistic dodge, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

During the hearing, Paul cited statements from Richard Ebright, a long-time gain-of-function research critic and Rutgers University biologist, published by National Review back in May. "The Wuhan lab used NIH funding to construct novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses able to infect human cells and laboratory animals," Ebright said. "This is high-risk research that creates new potential pandemic pathogens (i.e., potential pandemic pathogens that exist only in a lab, not in nature). This research matches—indeed epitomizes—the definition of 'gain-of-function research of concern' for which federal funding was 'paused' in 2014-2017." At the hearing, Fauci responded to Paul's assertions that the 2017 study "you were referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function."

In May, the NIH, in response to a query from the Washington Post's Fact Checker, issued a statement declaring that the agency "has never approved any grant to support 'gain-of-function' research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans. The research proposed in the EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., grant
application
sought to understand how bat coronaviruses evolve naturally in
the environment to become transmissible to the human population."

Robert Garry, a Tulane University virologist pointed out to Newsweek that the Wuhan experiments were done to study whether the bat coronaviruses could infect humans. What they didn't do, he argued, was make the viruses "any better" at infecting people, which would be necessary for gain-of-function research. In other words, Garry does not think that the WIV research increased the virulence or transmissibility of the modified viruses.

On Twitter, King's College London virologist Stuart Neil observed that "the EcoHealth grant [from the NIH] was judged by the vetting committee to not involve GoF [gain of function] because the investigators were REPLACING a function in a virus that ALREADY HAD human tropism rather than giving a function to one that could not infect humans." Neil does acknowledge that "understandably this is a grey area." He goes on to argue, "But whether I or anyone thinks in retrospect that this is or is not GoF, the NIH did not, so in that respect Fauci is NOT lying."

Live Congressional testimony is not always coherent, but Paul seemed to be suggesting later in the hearing that the COVID-19 coronavirus could be a gain-of-function virus developed by the WIV that leaked from the institute's laboratories. Fauci responded, "I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating, senator, because if you look at the viruses that were used in the experiments that were given in the annual reports that were published in the literature, it is molecularly impossible." Fauci is right: One point on which all researchers do agree is that none of the viruses modified in the 2017 study could be the cause of the current pandemic. They are simply too genetically different to be the precursors of the COVID-19 coronavirus.

During their heated exchange, Paul backtracked a bit, "No one is saying that those viruses caused the pandemic. What we're alleging is the gain-of-function research was going on in that lab and NIH funded it." Neil observes that "all lab leak scenarios rest on the isolation and culture of either the immediate precursor of SARS-CoV-2 or the construction of a molecular clone from such a hitherto unidentified/undisclosed virus that could serve as a template for GoF experiments not covered by the NIH funding or required for its stated aims and thus far denied by the WIV and EcoHealth." That is as may be, but Paul seems to be asserting a different claim, which is that the NIH funded some of the research that ended up training scientists at the WIV on how to use gain-of-function techniques that would enable them to develop, either intentionally or inadvertently, more virulent and lethal strains of coronaviruses.

So who is lying? Both Paul and Fauci can cite experts who agree with their interpretations of what the NIH funded at the WIV.  Consequently, both men can reasonably believe that they are each telling the truth while the other is a dishonest fraud.

It is worth noting that an international team of researchers posted earlier this month a preprint analysis that finds that most of the evidence strongly points to a natural spillover of the virus. Still, whether or not the pandemic coronavirus leaked from the WIV's labs is yet to be determined. The fact that the Chinese government has just rejected the World Health Organization's follow-up investigation into the origins of the virus will certainly and properly continue to fuel suspicions that it did.

NEXT: Elizabeth Warren Wants the IRS To Create Its Own TurboTax. What Could Go Wrong?

Coronavirus Anthony Fauci Rand Paul Research Senate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

398 responses to “Is Anthony Fauci Lying About NIH Funding of Wuhan Lab Research? Or Is Rand Paul?

  1. Who has more to lose. Follow the money. One of these two men was paid a lot of money over the decades for government work.

    1. Also the stream of articles out about Fauci “owning” Rand Paul seemed very coordinated and desperate.

      When the media tries that hard, something usually stinks.

      1. Nah, it’s a pretty universal opinion outside of Fox News.

    2. Fauci must be held accountable for his crimes.

      1. Not just fauci…

    3. Fauci has admitted lying, and lying about lying.

      On the other hand, Paul is a politician.

      On the gripping hand, everyone expects politicians to lie, but no one wants doctors to lie, especially when millions of lives are at stake.

      1. Fauci was outed as a self-aggrandizing liar back when he became head of NIAID, during the AIDS panic. He personally testified to Congress that HIV could be transmitted through the air, and that people were at risk of catching it just from being in the same room as HIV-positive patients. NIH and CDC (and every other researcher) knew damned well that HIV was not airborne, and was actually not easy to catch at all.
        After telling his lies, Fauci then demanded Congress increase his budget – and they did.

        When HIV activists later confronted him about his lies, Fauci said he had no idea who was telling these lies, but he felt sorry for the patients and would do everything he could to help them.
        Then he repeated his lies in another hearing.

        His staff later defended his statements: He hadn’t read his briefing papers… before briefing Congress on multiple occasions.

        And that’s all before his criminal lies about AZT that actually killed people.

        1. this. ^^

        2. “ He personally testified to Congress that HIV could be transmitted through the air…”

          Cite? How early on was this?

          https://www.emkinstitute.org/resources/anthony-s-fauci-oral-history-aids-researcher

          “The first case reports from Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in June of 1981 were of five cases of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, in individuals in Los Angeles.”

          “Then, as it evolved, literally week after week after week, you’d get the unfolding and the evolution of the epidemiology, which made it clear that it wasn’t restricted just to gay men, that it was a sexually transmitted disease, that it was blood-borne, because injection drug users and recipients of blood and blood products were getting it.”

          1. Your link has nothing to do with the statement you’re asking to be cited. What the fuck? This is dumb even for you white Mike.

          2. One example you dishonest fuck. 2 seconds of search you intellectually lazy fuckwit.

            https://www.aier.org/article/fauci-was-duplicitous-on-the-aids-epidemic-too/

            1. Did you expect different from him?

              1. I expected different from him and we got different from him. Linking to yet another nonsense, conspiracy-spin site which confirms the worst kinds of anti-intellectualism is not the same as proof. It is so sad to see the knots to which Paul will tie himself (and Trumpist disciples are willing to simply take on faith) in order to demonize anyone who suggests obvious, provable fact. This article itself twice exonerates Fauci and makes it clear that Paul and his supporters had to redefine their terms in order to make Fauci look guilty. Fauci is trying to save lives as a doctor should. Whether or not the effective remedies he suggests damages other elements of society are reasonable and should be argued. But as soon as Trumpists are forced to redefine terms in order to fit a narrative it’s obvious that the answer is more important than the question. At that point it is not an honest debate, which is what we have all learned about Trumpism.

                1. Freethinksman, out here spouting the party/msm/corporate collectivist line.

                  Lol

            2. You should probably read an article before accidentally citing is as something that refutes your claim. You lazy fuck.

          3. Go back to Salon. Jesus.

        3. Source? Not Fox News or Facebook either.

          1. Fox News is quite the boogie man to you leftists. Do you even watch it?

            1. They angrily masturbate to Tucker.

    4. Both of these men work for the government and have made lots of money.

      1. Rand Paul made his money as an eye doctor. You don’t have to like Rand Paul but be fair.

        1. What money?

          Opticians average about $70k a year in KY.

          1. “Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2
            July.23.2021 at 2:12 pm
            “What money?

            Opticians average about $70k a year in KY.”

            FFS another lazy, lying POS. Paul is an optometrist, D-bag

            1. Dr. Rand Paul is an ophthalmologist, which is different than an optometrist.

              1. Rand Paul could not get certified as an ophthalmologist, so he formed his own board to certify himself.

          2. REASONABLE – “Rand Paul made his money as an eye doctor (ophthalmologist)

            SPB2 – “What money? Opticians average about $70

            White Mike and chemleft pull this kind of garbage all the time too.

            Yes, Buttplug is stupid enough to imagine an eye surgeon and a glasses fitter are the same thing, but in this case the misrepresentation was deliberate.

            1. I’ve worked with a number of ophthalmologists, as clients. That specialty is closer to ‘brain surgeon’ as far as the difficulty level and general amount of respect it’s given among other doctors.

              You definitely don’t want to confuse them with optometrists or opticians.

              1. “You definitely don’t want to confuse them with optometrists or opticians.”

                Unless you’re being dishonest like dildo, in which case, that’s the whole point.

                1. Buttplug is too distracted by child porn to get anything right.

              2. He was trained as one but he never really worked in the profession. In fact, he had to create his own “license issuing board” so that he could continue to claim he was licensed, and has only seen some of his friends who did not need treatment so that he could claim he still saw patients.
                It’s usually safe to assume that everything that Rand Paul does is some form of dramatic presentation, though “con” would be a better word, since he sells his bullshit mainly to people who don’t know any better. I know RP isn’t the worst in this respect, but I have had a hard time identifying his principles, and he seems to be getting worse.

                1. He didn’t pass boards but he did do some practice. He had a clinic in Kentucky. He did mostly cataract surgery. He dabbled in it at least for a while even after he went into politics and kept up his license.

                2. Rand Paul, annually, does eye surgery for poor people to keep up his credentials. You can hate freedom , but you can’t change facts.

            2. Or maybe BP needs an ophthalmologist but instead saw an optician.

          3. I think he has training as a ophtamologist, but he has never worked for one. Like most rich people he inherited his wealth.

            1. Like most dumb people, you do not know what you don’t know. If you are an ophthalmologist you see patients(no pun intended). You don’t work for an ophthalmologist.

          4. Jiminy Cricket, he’s a ophthalmologist, not an optician. Night and day in terms of training and income.

    5. The elephant in the room is the French consortium that designed the Wuhan lab’s P4 biological containment system.

      It began warning its operators about the risks of containment security protocol violations a year before Covid-19 appeared.

    6. You clearly have little concept of compensation in the private vs the public sector. Fauci could be making many multiples of his government compensation if he were to work in the public sector. On the other hand, R. Paul (like Trump) relies on donations from dupes who know very little about science & are all to happy to blame our problems on “the yellow menace.”

      1. Somebody just ignored the rest of the thread. Probably on purpose. Now fuck back off to huffpo or wherever you came from. We’re full up on dumb lefty trolls here.

      2. You clearly don’t understand that the private sector does not tolerate idiots in the realm of research or medical practice. Fauci would have been fired, sued. and de-certified multiple times if he ever tried to compete with legitimate doctors and scientists.

        Paul succeeded in private practice for 20 years before running for office.

      3. Nigga, pleas, Rand Paul is a real doctor and Fauci is just a bureaucrat.

      4. You clearly have little concept of organizational politics, wherein the biggest shit-stains rise through the ranks not because they are the brightest and the best, but because they have no ethics, morals, and are excellent office politicians, and can bullshit like nobody’s business. Fauci epitomizes everything that sucks about large organizations. He is a pathological liar, even worse than Trump, because Trump was too unintelligent to know he was lying half the time. Fauci knows every word he utters that is untrue.

      5. Fauci also knows the media has his back as far as they can take it.

        He’s a fucking piece of shit.

      6. Fauci is literally the highest paid employee in the entire federal government. The closest private sector job I can think of for him would be teaching. Objectively, he doesn’t seem to have the chops to work anywhere else.

    7. One point not mentioned in the article was that there was a federal rule against funding gain of function research, hence an incentive pre-Covid to label it as something else if they wanted to fund it.

    8. In this thread, a bunch a media matters halfwits post their talking point of the day to attack Rand Paul and defend totalitarian fauci

  2. “…What is in contention is whether the NIH grant funded gain of function research at the WIV,…”

    If GoF research was carried out there, it takes a Tony-level sophist to suggest that the NIH contribution did NOT fund that research.

    1. Im sure they will be here shortly. When the paper trail eventually leads to him definitively, the arguments will shift to things like “I mean what IS function anyways?!”

    2. I actually think Fauci can reasonably claim that the NIH contribution did not fund the GOF research going on at the WIV. However, this is one of those cases where the “truth” is misleading, as it totally ignores the fungibility of money. And I think this is the real problem with all this, we should not be funding Chinese state-run infectious disease research labs with taxpayer money, regardless of whether it is GOF or not.

      1. we should not be funding Chinese state-run infectious disease research labs with taxpayer money

        Exactly, but there is no political gain in taking that position.

        It is TEAM RED vs TEAM BLUE!

        1. “Team Red” vs “Team Blue” has nothing to do with it, facts do.

          Fauci lied, repeatedly, on this and on many other issues. He has even admitted doing so.

        2. turd lies; it’s what he does. If he cites stats, they are either outright lies or cherry-picked such that they are meaningless.
          turd lies in every post, as in this one. turd is entirely too stupid to even understand he is lying.

          1. Quit sniffing my ass, Sevo. You old San Fran gay-fag.

            And why the fuck should we let Texas and Oklahoma into the SEC?

            I’m a Georgia Bulldog. I don’t want to dirty up the SEC.

            1. Damn, he’s not just gay, not just a fag, not just San, but also Fran? Damn.

            2. “I’m a Georgia Bulldog.”

              Too lazy to Google. What the fuck is a Georgia Bulldog?

              1. Usually an uneducated piece of shit.

                1. All SEC fans besides Vandy fans are backwards rubes.

                  Before Utah was let in the Az schools were the red headed step child of the Pac10. More Az state than Arizona.

                2. With daddy and kiddie issues.

              2. Jesus Christ ML. It’s not just hockey, but you don’t like sports at all.

                Do you hate curling, Molson, and maple syrup too?

                1. No. And I like Jews and Mormons too.

                  Does that make you supermad?

                  1. I have many Jewish friends and have stood up to Mormon anti-semitism for years.

                    My offer still stands if you can cite me being anti Semitic I’ll quit posting.

                    It doesn’t make me mad that you like Mormons. It just confirms what a horrible human being you are.

              3. They wait tables for Georgia Tech graduates on lunch break from their real jobs.

            3. turd lies; it’s what he does. If he cites stats, they are either outright lies or cherry-picked such that they are meaningless.
              turd lies in every post, as in this one. turd is entirely too stupid to even understand he is lying.

            4. You just want to deep dive into little boy’s shitboxes. You goddamn child raping shitweasel commie.

        3. Team Red vs. Team Red White and Blue

          1. it takes an impressive amount of delusion to frame things this way… congrats

      2. There is also the problem that the NIH skirted the prohibition on gain of function research by outsourcing to Wuhan. Even if the grant did not directly fund a possible precursor to COVID 19, it was still bending if not breaking the rules.

      3. “…However, this is one of those cases where the “truth” is misleading, as it totally ignores the fungibility of money…”

        Which is *EXACTLY* why it takes a sophist to claim that money did not fund GoF research.

      4. “…However, this is one of those cases where the “truth” is misleading, as it totally ignores the fungibility of money…”

        Which is the reason Fauci should be called on his sophistry.

        1. Squirrels are active today…

      5. And since we are funding a lab, shouldn’t the US have access to that lab to do its own investigation. The fact he sat on that kind of info and didn’t have Congress demanding China allow USA unfettered access is grounds for immediate dismissal.

        As far as I’m concerned he sat on the info and dismissed claims of a leak so the Chinese could do his dirty work and dispose of the evidence.

    3. That’s because he doesn’t understand the fungible nature of money.

  3. Fauci is lying.
    It’s what he does.

  4. Hint: Rand Paul has nothing to cover up.

    1. But he does have elections to win and republicans are loving this.

      Fauci may have things to cover up but he is not the only one with a motive.

      1. Agree

        1. Nobody cares dumbfuck.

          1. “Nobody cares dumbfuck.”
            Chill, dude. A little self-awareness will do wonders.

            1. He’s replying to a dumbfuck.

        2. You’re not capable of seeing past democrat narratives, are you?

      2. But he does have elections to win

        Paul is a real candidate for President in 2024. If he is proven wrong in calling Fauci a liar, it will sink his candidacy.

        1. Hilarious.

          Like Ron Paul he will top out at 10% of the GOP primary vote.

          1. It’s a very different world than back during the Neocon ascension.

            People now realize that stopping you guys is a matter of saving the Western world.

            1. SPB is a moron. Outside of Kentucky, Rand’s only appeals to intellectuals and libertarians. Being wrong on this will kill any chance with those groups. I know that I personally will lose all respect for him if it is just a political ploy to impress the Trump crowd.

              Remember when Paul got COVID right before the first big relief bill that he may have filibustered? Good times…

            2. Let’s get real here; don’t you mean “saving” the ever-growing Nazism??? Are you also to deny most of the left identify correctly as National Socialists?

          2. turd lies; it’s what he does. If he cites stats, they are either outright lies or cherry-picked such that they are meaningless.
            turd lies in every post, as in this one. turd is entirely too stupid to even understand he is lying.

          3. Top out at 10%? Ron Paul 2012 primary results:

            21% in Iowa
            23% in New Hampshire
            19% in Nevada
            27% in Minnesota
            36% in Maine
            21% in Wyoming
            25% in Washington
            24% in Alaska
            28% in North Dakota
            25% in Vermont
            40% in Virginia

        2. Haha! Since when do Republican voters care about lying. Their last two presidential candidates were Trump and Romney!

          Hahaha!

          1. Don’t worry, I would never expect you to judge someone on anything other than superficial characteristics. Your tiny brain would grind to a halt.

            1. GOP voters don’t seem to care about lying seeing they elected Trump.

              I wouldn’t expect you to follow that simple logic. Anyone who joins a church as an adult that worships a discredited pervert conman is not playing with a full deck.

              1. “I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

                The biggest and most important LIE the left state’s every term.

              2. Like worshiping the POWER of Gov-Gods.
                Like pretending they can legislate the weather like a God?

                The amount the lefty projects is amazing..

              3. You faggots chose Biden. That means you lose any voice on criticizing any republicans ever.

                You should also kill yourself.

          2. I find Romney’s politics awful, but for all his faults I’ve never thought of him as a liar.

            1. Mormons are liars. Especially higher ups like Romney.

            2. Your life does not matter

              1. asshole gets 3 flags

      3. Paul is in a state that elects Mitch McConnell. He has nothing to worry about.

  5. Given the recent history, Fauci is the lying turd.

  6. I’m left wondering why people think Fauci is so fucking wonderful. What has he accomplished that’s worthy of worship?

    1. I haven’t totaled up all the numbers yet, but it looks like Fauci has taken more money from the federal government in salaries than any human ever.

    2. That accent…so sexy. Works for Cuomo, works for Fauci

    3. Not being a yes-man to the moron we had as President.

      1. BINGO – The correct answer is

        1. “BINGO – The correct answer is”

          Does that have anything at all to do with the subject at hand, which is did the NIH, directly or indirectly, fund GOF research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology?

          No, it is just another distraction [“but TRUMP!”], but clearly reveals your bias.

          1. I answered the question which was asked: “I’m left wondering why people think Fauci is so fucking wonderful. What has he accomplished that’s worthy of worship?”

            1. No you didn’t. You answered as a leftist would answer. You worship Fauci because you think he fought trump. Despite his own interviews saying trump didn’t ever go against what he asked.

              Youre ignorant as usual. He agreed with trump. Well disagreed with the focus on vaccines. Another Fauci failure.

              1. ‘Another Fauci failure’……

                That’s a good catchphrase. We should all use and popularize it.

            2. You’re pathetic

            3. So you admitted people think he’s wonderful because they have TDS. Thanks Dee.

        2. Just because Trump was a moron doesn’t mean Fauci isn’t a lying shit-bag.

          They are two unconnected concepts, except for those TDS-addled morons, for whom anything “not Trump” must be good.

          Trump was a moron, and Fauci is a lying bag of shit. There are NO “good guys.”

          See if you can wrap your bluetard brain around that.

    4. He’s either been wrong or lied about almost every major public health issue dating back to the Reagan administration. That’s a fairly impressive track record. Even meteorologists are right half the time.

  7. All this so that the GOP can claim that the Chinese cooked Covid up in the lab and that will somehow enhance The Dotard’s 2024 electability.

    Jan 6 is far more important politically. Of course the GOP is trying to memory-hole that one too.

    1. turd lies; it’s what he does. If he cites stats, they are either outright lies or cherry-picked such that they are maningless.
      turd lies in every post, as in this one. turd is entirely too stupid to even understand ht is lying.

      1. Could turd be Fauci? The misfacts and lies fit.

    2. “I don’t care about 4 million dead bodies if the evidence of the cause of their death would help Republicans.”

      1. Oh, so now the CT emerges!

        China and Fauci cooked up the virus in a lab to destroy Trump’s reelection chances!

        Got it!

        1. That’s literally not what he said. Hell of a grasping strawman you got there.

        2. That’s quite the leap from his accurate restatement of your own unhinged conspiracy theory stunningly coherent analysis.

        3. turd lies; it’s what he does. If he cites stats, they are either outright lies or cherry-picked such that they are meaningless.
          turd lies in every post, as in this one. turd is entirely too stupid to even understand he is lying.

    3. Sarah Palin’s Buttplug 2 derps, “Of course the GOP is trying to memory-hole that one too.”

      No, shitface. They are too busy rightfully incriminating the F.B.Lie and its orchestration of events. Full-on dishonest troll.

      How’s that audit in Arizona going? Not memory holing that either.

    4. January 6 was a bunch of morons who got out of hand. It wasn’t an “insurrection” – you want to see one of those? Go to Colombia, or Ethiopia – THAT is what insurrections look like. Real insurrections actually threaten the government, which January 6 did to the zeroeth degree.

      1. What group or country is smuggling in fire extinguishers to Columbia?

      2. Democrats did the same thing at the Wisconsin Capitol and accomplished the same thing.
        I wouldn’t have shed a tear for the people climbing through broken windows if they got Babbitt’d. The Republican protesters made a faulty assumption when they thought they’d get treated with the same kid gloves that progressive protesters get handled with.

    5. You should be put to death. I suspect your trial will be amusing.

  8. Is Anthony Fauci Lying About NIH Funding of Wuhan Lab Research? Or Is Rand Paul?

    Well, without even having read the article yet, one has an established track record of lying and disingenuousness.

    1. Fauci is not, and as far as I can see, has never been a scientist. He is a life long government bureaucrat who has risen to not only run a bureaucracy, but is the public spokesman for that bureaucracy.

      As a public spokesman, he has repeatedly lied to protect his bureaucracy. He continually flip-flops as the political winds have changed in order to do his real job – protect the government.

      He funded the Chinese government’s education in virology. ln the defense industry this kind of know-how would be considered a dual use technology, one that can be used for both legitimate commercial purposes and military purposes.

      With strong suspicions that the Chinese labs were engaged in biological weapons research, Fauci should never have considered any contact with the Wuhan Institute. Fauci would be flirting with 40 years in jail were this know-how to be judged by ITAR standards. (International Trafficking in Arms Regulations)

      1. “In a 2021 analysis of Google Scholar citations, Dr. Fauci ranked as the 35th most-cited living researcher. According to the Web of Science, Dr. Fauci ranked 9th out of 2.5 million authors in the field of immunology by total citation count between 1980 and January 2021. During the same period, he ranked 20th out of 2.4 million authors in the field of research & experimental medicine, and 132nd out of 992,000 authors in the field of general & internal medicine.”

        “He developed effective therapies for formerly fatal inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases such as polyarteritis nodosa, granulomatosis with polyangiitis (formerly Wegener’s granulomatosis), and lymphomatoid granulomatosis. A 1985 Stanford University Arthritis Center Survey of the American Rheumatism Association membership ranked Dr. Fauci’s work on the treatment of polyarteritis nodosa and granulomatosis with polyangiitis among the most important advances in patient management in rheumatology over the previous 20 years.“

        https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio

        I mean whatever, but you can’t take that away from him.

        He is actually a rockstar scientist. He is terrible as a spokesperson and political policy.

        1. He is a monster.

        2. GOP DON’T CARE ABOUT NO CREDENTIALS!

          1. turd lies; it’s what he does. If he cites stats, they are either outright lies or cherry-picked such that they are maningless.
            turd lies in every post, as in this one. turd is entirely too stupid to even understand ht is lying.

        3. “He is actually a rockstar scientist.”

          Most definitely not unless you like untrustworthy liars and his false testimony about AIDS, in front of Congress, that was recounted above by Toranth. What a tool. That would be you and Fauci should there be any question.

        4. “He is actually a rockstar scientist. ”

          You never give up with the bullshit and ignorance, do you?

          He’s a Rockstar bureaucrat. They excel at getting their name included on publications, not doing the actual work that may appear in the publication.

          1. That does happen but you don’t get to that level overnight or by accident. If your name is on the paper you sure as hell better know what is in it and at least had a supervisory role.

            Even at the university level the chief never steps foot in the lab. The grad students do all the work but it doesn’t mean the chief had nothing to do with it.

            1. Here we see echospinner praising Daddy Gov for its unquestionable competence and integrity

        5. Oddly, for a highly cited scientist, he cites no papers justifying his positions on COVID. A scientist who takes positions believing that he need not cite any sources for his conclusions is a very, very poor scientist.

          By “Rock star” do you mean has-been overwhelmed by adulation, and who follows the crowd in the belief that he is leading it? Yes, he certainly acts like one.

          1. Like when he makes a half-minute public statement he doesn’t cite all his references? The CDC has a website with data, white papers, policy explanations, etc.

            1. Damnit Dee, shut the fuck up.

            2. How about his hundreds of other statements over the last year and a half?

          2. He did not do any basic research on Covid. Now he is purely acting in the political and public sphere. As I said he is not very good at it.

        6. Lol. Or he attached his names to a lot of papers like many bureaucrats in leadership do.

          You recognize the papers in that estimation contain many authors per paper right? Or did you just blindly cite that comment?

        7. And yet he admitted publicly that he tempered the science to play to political realities. He’s a politician first, a scientist second.

        8. I have personally authored papers for Gov employees who were civilian equivalents of 1 – 2 star generals. They fund the work expecting to be a lead author on papers they didn’t write. Happens all the time in my circles. I would wager Fauci’s proficiency at paper generation was through this route.

  9. In before 1000 comments.

    1. The lefty childish name-calling, substance-less lefty propaganda mill is working overtime on this article. They tend to do that a lot whenever they get caught with their pants down.

  10. “has never approved any grant to support ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.

    So wait, they did provide monies for gain of function, just not that gain of function? Is this really what I’m reading here?

    1. Depends on what the definition of each and every one of those words is, and how one can interpret their combination in that particular order.

      1. As they said, sophistry: “depends upon what the meaning of is is”

    2. That’s exactly what Fauci admitted to during the hearing. He claims the GoF experiments they were funding weren’t for coronaviruses, so it’s totally cool.

  11. Before he contracted TDS, Ron Bailey was objective about scientific issues (same goes for Sullum).

    Fauci has been lying about covid for the past 18 months.

    In addition to covid’s origin, Fauci also continues to lie about the data and scientific evidence on natural immunity.

    While about half of all Americans (i.e. those who already contracted covid) remain immune from covid, Fauci continues to urge all of them to get vaccines (by claiming they are not immune).

    According to
    https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-tracker/
    only 14 Americans who had covid have been reinfected, and just 157 people worldwide.

    Thus, the risk of an American getting a second infection of covid is just 14 out of 165 million (or 1 out of every 11.8 million).

    And since about 40% of Americans who already had covid also received a covid vaccine, about 66 million covid vaccine doses were wasted on Americans who were already immune.

    Those 66 million wasted vaccine doses could (and should) have been given instead to poor people in poor countries (that have little or no access to vaccines).

    In sum, Fauci’s lies about natural immunity are responsible for millions of covid infections and hundreds of thousands of covid deaths in foreign countries.

    1. Bailey couldn’t muster up a “both sides” so instead gave us “there are sides.”

      Really went out on a limb with this one.

      1. That’s to be expected from a science correspondent, IMO.

        Also, this whole argument reminds me of that episode of Futurama where Hermes’ bureaucratic overlords declared him ‘Technically correct, the best kind of correct’

    2. Before he contracted TDS, Ron Bailey was objective about scientific issues (same goes for Sullum).

      Disagree. Bailey has been in favor of mandatory vaccinations since at least Zika. Given his years of declaring things to be part of the public commons and then declaring their necessary regulation as a tragedy of the commons, he wasn’t objective. He could frequently present things objectively, but he wasn’t broadly objective.

      Similar with his consistent drum beat of “Once we get rid of beef, we can return all the ranch land to nature.” which a) has nothing to do with Trump and b) ignores the fact that it’s private land, and c) also ignores the fact that it’s some of the least-developed private land you’re likely to find.

      1. Getting rid of the cows and letting the ranch land evolve absent their presence is sure to create some problems of its own. It’s not like there’s millions of bison sitting around waiting to move back in.

        1. There used to be 60 million bison roaming the plains.
          There are currently 94 million cows.

          1. Most of those are dairy cattle in confined dairies, not range beef cattle.

      2. Bailey is a transhumanist, and there ain’t a more fundamentally progressive philosophy out there

    3. Bailey may have opinions about things, but I’ve seen him reverse course on scientific issues before when the evidence was persuasive enough.

      Bailey has been sympathetic to the transhumanist movement in the past, and he isn’t wrong if he suspect that this line of public questioning about genetic engineering might threaten the ability of scientists to conduct genetic experiments like this in the future under better conditions.

      Being rational doesn’t mean emptying our minds of any opinion, and if Bailey has some opinions of his own, that’s to be expected from any intelligent person.

      1. Bailey has been sympathetic to the transhumanist movement in the past, and he isn’t wrong if he suspect that this line of public questioning about genetic engineering might threaten the ability of scientists to conduct genetic experiments like this in the future under better conditions.

        It’s not the “questioning” that is threatening beneficial genetic engineering, it’s the fact that the US government outsources dangerous genetic engineering to communist dictatorships with no legal accountability and a blatant disregard for human life.

        1. I agree.

          P.S. Did you see my post, yesterday, where I said I was wrong and you were right?

          https://reason.com/2021/07/22/biden-says-cdc-probably-will-recommend-kids-under-12-wear-masks-to-school/#comment-9006449

        2. I agree to an extent.

          I wouldn’t put it past politicians to ban perfectly safe research when they’re attempting to ban something that should be banned.

          They’re famously good at screwing that up.

          The problem here wasn’t regulation. Knowing not to do dangerous research in an unsafe lab connected to the Chinese military doesn’t require regulation. It just requires basic competence.

          1. And not being an evil monster.

          2. Well the commonly understood definition of “basic competence” may not be Fauci’s view. Fauci, Dazac and the WIV are all members of an international Top Men Club. Their worldview differs markedly from that of some guy trying to follow this trail who reaches the common sense conclusion that funding Gof research in China is dangerous. If some bureaucrats in a different club, or an outraged public, decide to pause funding for a specifically defined research, the definition of that research can simply be modified and the claim made that the research does not fit the prohibited definition. All of which leads to the endless parsing and hair splitting that Bailey serves up above. It’s pretty clear to me that Fauci has been trying to cover his ass from the beginning as indicated by his emails and is becoming increasingly desperate.

  12. “One point on which all researchers do agree is that none of the viruses modified in the 2017 study could be the cause of the current pandemic. They are simply too genetically different to be the precursors of the COVID-19 coronavirus.”

    —-Ronald Bailey

    1. I need to understand a couple things about this statement.

      1) Is this statement accounting for the sequences that were removed from the database by the scientists in Wuhan who originally deposited them? Did “all researches” agree about this not being the cause of the pandemic before or after they found out about the missing sequences?

      “Partial SARS-CoV-2 sequences from early outbreaks in Wuhan were removed from a US government database by the scientists who deposited them . . . .

      Bloom says that, although the sequences were published, their removal from the SRA meant that few scientists knew about them. A report commissioned by the World Health Organization on the pandemic’s origins did not include the sequences in an evolutionary analysis of early SARS-CoV-2 data. “Nobody noticed they existed,” Bloom says.

      —-Nature, June 24, 2021

      https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01731-3

      That article at Nature says that once the missing sequences were recovered and analyzed, the early specimens of what came to be known as Covid-19 proved to be closely related to bat viruses–which were different from the viruses that were collected from the seafood market.

      If this information wasn’t available to the researchers at the time that they decided that the pandemic couldn’t have originated from the experiments at Wuhan, then their opinions on that need to be reformulated in light of that new data.

      1. I need to understand a couple things about this statement.

        I’m not sure what’s so complicated about it. WIH probably generated hundreds of genetically manipulated viral strains, using similar techniques. The paper published in 2017 describes one such experiment, probably carried out in 2016.

        SARS-CoV-2 would likely have come from a different experiment (but using a similar approach) carried out in 2019 that had not yet been published. Presumably, after the virus was released (accidentally or otherwise), researchers weren’t eager to publish a paper on that specific experiment.

        1. “They are simply too genetically different to be the precursors of the COVID-19 coronavirus.””

          —-Ronald Bailey

          Well, the question is whether we’re talking about the experiment that the NIAID funded, and if the researchers we’re talking about were looking at the Covid-19 data with the sequences that showed it to be closely related to bats, then they may have come to a different conclusion about that.

          It is also my understanding that the experiments the NIAID funded in 2019 were using bat viruses that had been souped up in the past by the same research team.

          1. The 2017 paper describes NIH-funded gain-of-function research, and Fauci lied about it.

            This is a fact independent of any subsequent experiments that may or may not be related to Covid-19.

    2. 2) Does this analysis account for Covid-19’s CGG-CGG combination?

      “In fact, in the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally. That means the common method of viruses picking up new skills, called recombination, cannot operate here. A virus simply cannot pick up a sequence from another virus if that sequence isn’t present in any other virus.

      Although the double CGG is suppressed naturally, the opposite is true in laboratory work. The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory.

      —-Steven Quay and Richard Muller

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-suggests-a-wuhan-lab-leak-11622995184

      I offer the following argument crafted from the statements in Quay and Muller’s piece.

      —-General Premise: “In the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally”.

      —-Specific Premise: “It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2”.

      —-Conclusion: Therefore, “the scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory”.

      While that doesn’t necessarily prove beyond any doubt that Covid-19 was a product of the experiments Fauci’s NIAID funded in Wuhan, it’s seems more than enough evidence to refute the assertion that Covid-19 couldn’t possibly have come from the experiments Fauci’s NIAID funded at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

      1. As I point out below, Fauci doesn’t appear to have weighed the full measure of his statements. If this wasn’t a novel, gain-of-function virus, then it was just like any other flu.

        1. Fauci’s and the NIH’s incompetence is the most important aspect of this, to my eye, and regardless of whether the experiments they funded were the cause of the pandemic, their behavior was incredibly incompetent.

          The real problem is that the Wuhan Institute of Virology has ties to the Chinese military that may involve their biological weapons capabilities. Furthermore, the Wuhan Institute of Virology failed Chinese safety inspections. Oh, and a team from the U.S. State Department wrote multiple cables back to Washington warning them about the dangerous experiments amid scary condition the NIH was funding–and that was after those State Department officials toured the facility with the exact same scientist who did this gain of function research.

          In other words, it was profoundly incompetent for Fauci to fund this extremely dangerous research in facility with a terrible safety record and ties to the Chinese military–and that remains true regardless of whether the research the NIH funded was the actual cause of the pandemic.

          If it turns out that the house burned down because of faulty wiring in the garage, that doesn’t exonerate Fauci and the NIH from being caught red-handed in the garage playing with matches and kerosene. Having funded dangerous research in a lab with a terrible safety record and ties to the Chinese military is all the evidence we should need to see him removed from office.

          Why hasn’t he been kicked to the curb already?

          1. If it turns out that the house burned down because of faulty wiring in the garage, that doesn’t exonerate Fauci and the NIH from being caught red-handed in the garage playing with matches and kerosene.

            I was thinking more along the lines of loaning $1K of other peoples’ money to a drunk who bought a cheap used car and slammed it into a bus full of nuns, killing them. Doesn’t much matter if he used the $1K to buy the car or pay down his bar tab. You, by every definition of the word, misappropriated the $1K.

          2. “In other words, it was profoundly incompetent for Fauci to fund this extremely dangerous research in facility with a terrible safety record and ties to the Chinese military”

            THAT entirely depends on who he’s actually working for. He could be an incompetent American bureaucrat, or he could be a highly competent Chinese asset.

      2. —-General Premise: “In the entire class of coronaviruses that includes CoV-2, the CGG-CGG combination has never been found naturally”.

        —-Specific Premise: “It was this exact sequence that appears in CoV-2”.

        —-Conclusion: Therefore, “the scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory”.

        And so this is a great example of what I was mentioning earlier, of Ken smuggling in hidden premises into his arguments.

        This chain of reasoning also assumes that:

        1. viruses can only mutate by interacting with other viruses, as opposed to interacting with something else, so that if CGG-CGG isn’t found in another virus, then SARS-CoV-2 had no way to pick up that sequence by random mutation. In fact, there are a huge number of ways that viruses can mutate, and recombination with other viruses is just one way that they can mutate. They don’t have to mutate only by interacting with other viruses. For example, they can mutate by interacting with proteins within the infected cell. A great example of this is HIV-1, which is well known to mutate rapidly. The major reason why HIV-1 mutates so rapidly is NOT by interacting with other HIV-1 viruses, but by interacting with cytidine deaminases within the host cell.

        https://www.immunopaedia.org.za/breaking-news/2016-articles/what-causes-the-high-mutation-rates-of-hiv-1-in-the-human-body/

        So by itself, because CGG-CGG isn’t found in other coronaviruses, but is found in SARS-CoV-2, doesn’t really mean anything. It alone does not prove the virus is synthetic.

        2. the CGG-CGG sequence is super-special that is uniquely used as a marker in synthetic nucleotide sequences, and finding this sequence is a red hot smoking gun in favor of a manmade origin. In fact, EVERY possible nucleotide sequence is capable of being generated synthetically and capable of being used as a marker for some experiment. Using this reasoning, I could literally point to *any* six base pair sequence and claim “aha! That is proof it’s synthetic!” because there are undoubtedly published papers out there that did use that sequence as some marker for something. The CGG-CGG sequence is a marker that is sometimes used, yes. But so is every other sequence. Discovering THAT sequence doesn’t prove a synthetic origin.

        3. we can use Occam’s Razor type of analysis when it comes to mutations and evolution. We just can’t That isn’t how evolution works. Evolution itself is the story of statistically improbable mutations that had never before occurred. In essence Ken is making the Creationist’s Argument, that since an event is statistically improbable, therefore, it is unlikely and the hypothesis of random mutation generating the event should be discarded in favor of the hypothesis that the event occurring by a deliberate and conscious Creator. Except in this case, Ken replaces God with human beings as the conscious, deliberate creators of SARS-CoV-2.

        So IF IF IF one assumes that (1) viruses can ONLY mutate by recombination, (2) the CGG-CGG sequence is the ONLY marker used for synthetic DNA experiments, and (3) evolution is false, then yes, Ken’s argument is completely sound and correct. But don’t point this out to Ken, because if you do, that is proof of “ad hominem” or “disrupting the conversation” or “shitposting” or some such. Because he’s such a “confident” logician he has to block the people criticizing his logic.

        1. “…3. we can use Occam’s Razor type of analysis when it comes to mutations and evolution. We just can’t That isn’t how evolution works. Evolution itself is the story of statistically improbable mutations that had never before occurred…”

          You are full of shit.
          Mutations must be genetically very close to the progenitor, otherwise they quickly die off.

        2. On point 3, you are wrong, you absolutely can and should use Occam’s razor when it comes to evolution. Moreover I think you are falling into some of the same trap of the creationist when you describe evolution. I actually made these same points on your similar post on another article. I’ll quote it here:

          “This is just a nitpick on your description of evolution, not the political part. You actually are nearly falling into the same trap as creationists. Creationists use [the statistically impossible] argument as if our genes are totally randomly determined and created ex nihilo. It is true that mutations are mostly random, specific base pair mutations have a low probability to occur, and those mutations that do occur have a low probability of having any discernable, if any, effect. However, mutation without specificity is highly probable. Also evolution is both highly non-random (survival and reproduction), builds upon previous working plans, and the mutations occur across multiple individuals. This of course starts to make it much more statistically probable that particular natural mutations will arise as they increase reproductive success.

          Also you absolutely can apply Occam’s Razor to evolution, and you should! One of the most quoted versions of the razor is ‘entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity’. Here the creationists are the ones violating Occam’s Razor because they need many ad hoc hypotheses in order to explain away the failures in their theories.”

      3. “has never been found naturally”

        But there’s no reason it couldn’t not occur naturally.

        1. Thanks, iPhone, for inserting the extra negative.

          1. More claims, still no evidence or any hint that you would be capable of making that judgement.

        2. There is a discernable trend here; those who very much want it to be a creation of the WIV, and those who very much do not want it to be.

          Perhaps it would help to try to be a bit more objective, instead of beginning with an assumption that must [“I sure hope so”] be correct and therefore all facts must support the bias.

          And if only we could take Trump out of the equation, that might be possible.

          1. I didn’t mention Trump, and I don’t have a strong opinion about the Wuhan lab theory. I _do_ want to point out the holes in Ken’s supposedly airtight dispassionate logic.

            1. Bullshit Dee.

      4. That is absolute garbage.

        CGG which codes for the protein Arginine is all over both Sars and Covid genomes. The idea that a recombination could not naturally occur such that they occur sequentially is just wrong. Two scientists from the University of Leeds, a molecular biologist and a virologist explain it in detail here:

        https://theconversation.com/covid-lab-leak-theory-rare-genetic-sequence-doesnt-mean-the-virus-was-engineered-162360

        1. Well, OF COURSE it “could” happen. We’re talking probabilities here. Nobody is claiming that sequence showing up in a Covid virus would violate a law of physics, just that the evidence suggests that it isn’t terribly likely.

          1. In a virus that mutates this rapidly it becomes more likely. There are already thousands of mutations since the pandemic. We only hear about the ones that matter.

            So the only thing we know is that we don’t know.

        2. Just checked and at least 3 of the 29 who signed the letter last year swearing up and down that COVID had a natural origin were listed with the same foundation that funds the virologist author of the article you linked. The guy that put that letter together is linked directly to the WIV and the NIH money.

          All the conflicts of interest are going to be nearly impossible to identify. There are a lot of people with a lot to lose if it comes out that COVID was inadvertently released by researchers.

        3. The article you linked at “The Conversation” doesn’t do a very good job of describing the arguments (or premises) put forward in The Wall Street Journal article by Steven Quay and Richard Muller. In fact, in the quote I’ll link below, they concede 1) there are no examples of this combination existing in nature for this class of coronavirus and 2) that it couldn’t have come to Covid-19 by way of recombination.

          Here is what they say about Quay and Muller’s article:

          “They note that the double-CGG codon pair is not found in other members of this “class” of coronavirus, so natural recombination could not possibly generate a double-CGG. However, viruses do not just depend on preassembled segments of genetic material to evolve and expand their host range.

          The authors also claim that mutation (random copying errors) is unlikely to generate the double-CGG sequence. But viruses evolve at a rapid rate, so much so that the accumulation of mutations is a common inconvenience of virological studies. Recombination is one way in which viruses evolve, but the authors’ dismissal of mutation as a source of viral change is an inaccurate description of reality.

          —-The Conversation

          https://theconversation.com/covid-lab-leak-theory-rare-genetic-sequence-doesnt-mean-the-virus-was-engineered-162360

          The purpose of science isn’t to prove something is true beyond a reasonable doubt, and unlike what is written at The Conversation, Steven Quay and Richard Muller did not completely dismiss mutation as a source of viral change. Here’s what Quay and Muller actually wrote:

          “Yes, it could have happened randomly, through mutations. But do you believe that? At the minimum, this fact—that the coronavirus, with all its random possibilities, took the rare and unnatural combination used by human researchers—implies that the leading theory for the origin of the coronavirus must be laboratory escape.”

          —-Quay and Muller

          Ibidem

          This isn’t a trial where we determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is science, where we draw reasonable and qualified conclusions from the available data. And Quay and Muller’s conclusion was not that Covid-19 was created in a lab beyond a reasonable doubt. I used their statement as my conclusion, and this is what they concluded:

          “The scientific evidence points to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory.”

          —-Quay and Muller

          And guess what? The scientific evidence they cited does point to the conclusion that the virus was developed in a laboratory–regardless of whether there are other possible explanations.

          It is unnecessary for science to eliminate every possible explanation, except for one, before it can draw reasonable and qualified conclusions based on the available data. That is why it’s unnecessary to argue with the Flat Earth Society, six-day creationists, the moonshot hoax people, or ChemJeff. The only thing I see The Conversation saying is that it could have been a mutation, but Quay and Muller don’t dispute that.

          If Tony came in here and claimed that Trump could have hired Putin and the Russians to covertly release an engineered virus in Wuhan–just to make Fauci look bad–the scientific evidence would point to Covid-19 being engineered in a lab anyway. And if mutation is, likewise, an extremely unlikely explanation, relative to the Wuhan Institute of Virology engineering bat viruses as they were known to do, then the scientific evidence should point to a conclusion that reflects reality.

          We might also point out that the article in question was written on June 6, 2021. Biden didn’t break down and order an investigation into the origin of Covid-19 until May 26, 2021. At the time Quay and Muller published their article, the public scientific consensus was that Covid-19 couldn’t possibly have been engineered in a lab, and people weren’t even allowed to talk about it on social media.

          When they wrote their article, they may have been looking for a way to show that it was merely possible for Covid-19 to have been engineered at the Wuhan Institute of Virology–and stumbled onto a way to show that the lab leak theory was not only possible but also that the scientific evidence pointed to the conclusion that Covid-19 was manufactured in a lab.

          Good for them!

          P.S. Thank you for attacking the premises of the argument. That is far better than what I get from the Flat Earth Society around here.

          1. So, everyone agrees that the CGG-CGG segment could have arisen due to a mutation. But the reason why Ken, and Quay & Miller, believe that the scientific evidence points towards the lab leak theory is because CGG-CGG is used as a marker for synthetic DNA experiments, so isn’t is just soo incredibly suspicious that this same CGG-CGG sequence shows up in SARS-CoV-2, when it doesn’t appear in any other coronaviruses? It WOULD be suspicious, IF CGG-CGG was the *only* marker used for synthetic DNA experiments. But in point of fact, *every possible codon* is used in synthetic DNA experiments of one type or another.

            Here is a relatively random paper in which the authors introduce synthetic CAG codons into their DNA samples. CAG codes for glutamine.

            https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.07.082354v1.full

            Are we now supposed to believe that CAG fragments in SARS-CoV-2 represent “proof” of a synthetic origin? No of course not.

            And if you re-read the WSJ article, they are making a lot of conjecture. IF the virus was engineered, then the creators would probably have used CGG-CGG as a synthetic marker. Since the virus has CGG-CGG, that means it was synthetically made!

            This is a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

            An example (from the Wikipedia page):
            If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.
            Bill Gates is rich.
            Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

            This is obviously false.

            Applied to this topic:
            If the virus is synthetic, then it would have the CGG-CGG sequence.
            The virus has the CGG-CGG sequence.
            Therefore, the virus is synthetic.

            Same fallacy. And I thought Ken was a master of logical reasoning too. Huh. I wonder how he got fooled so easily into falling for such a basic fallacy?

            1. Same fallacy. And I thought Ken was a master of logical reasoning too. Huh. I wonder how he got fooled so easily into falling for such a basic fallacy?

              Mostly because you are an abject moron and are stating the logical premise in silly fashion. It isn’t the same logical fallacy.

              Since this is the only known Coronavirus with the CGG-CGG pattern the equivalent would be: Every known rich person owns Fort Knox. therefore it is not an unreasonable assumption that if Bill Gates is rich, he probably owns Fort Knox.

  13. When weighing one “expert” against another, please note that Fauxi has no degrees in science.

    1. And his medical degree is from back when the study of Medicine was more like advanced trade school than a scientific field. Doctors schooled in that era would get absolutely demolished on the modern MCAT. Few of these doctors ever studied organic chemistry of molecular cell biology.

      1. Are you sure about that? He graduated in 1966, about a decade before my own father graduated from medical school and he definitely took organic chemistry and molecular cell biology.

    2. I am not a fan of Fauci as the head of the NIH or his handling of COVID, but he does have an MD and has been involved in some solid scientific research. Again, this is not to say we shouldn’t criticize him and I, for one, would love to see him resign/get fired, but we should be accurate with what his faults are.

      1. An MD is not a degree in science. As was pointed out above, it’s more of a trade school diploma. He is publicly disagreeing with scientists who have terminal degrees in the field.

        1. No an MD does not require a thesis of original research traditionally associated with the term “doctor” and most do not go on to be scientists in the strictest sense. However, it is a degree that requires a great deal of study in scientific disciplines (the same way an engineer must study physics) and a good portion of people with MDs do go on to do scientific research, in fact, my industry is full of MDs that do exactly this. And Fauci is an accomplished scientist, with highly cited work on human immune responses and the progression of HIV into AIDS.

          Of course, just because he is an accomplished scientist doesn’t mean he is right here, since that would be a classic argument from authority, and I am not making that argument (nor would I, I think he has not been good here). I am more trying to point out that you are making an equally fallacious argument, namely ad hominem. Fuck his credentials or anyone else’s credentials, what matters is whether the evidence is with him or against him.

        2. Plenty of MDs do real scientific research. And it appears Fauci did. If he was good at it, he should have stuck to that.

          1. Yes he should have. Seems his ego got in the way.

  14. I don’t need to read a 500-word essay to answer that one. Fauci is lying.

  15. Consequently, both men can reasonably believe that they are each telling the truth while the other is a dishonest fraud.

    Again, Fauci has an established track record of obfuscation and disingenuous statements.

    A research article written by WIV scientists, “Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus”, for example, qualifies as gain-of-function and was clearly a product of NIH-funding.

    Ebright insists that the research can be classified as gain-of-function under a number of different definitions, including those found in two pieces of Department of Health and Human Services guidance on the subject.

    The first details the Obama administration’s 2014 decision to halt domestic gain-of-function research, which it defines as that which “may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.”

    1. The paper drafted by WIV scientists clearly states that the underlying research was funded by, among other entities, the National Institutes of Health. The NIH’s own database of grantees lists this research and confirms that over $660,000 was spent supporting it.

      Fauci appears to have been, at best, mistaken while sparring with Senator Paul on Tuesday. At worst, he was playing tenuous word games meant to deceive.

      For another perspective.

      1. Given his role at NAID being ‘mistaken’ is not defense.

  16. The link to the Holmes et al. preprint on origins is wrong; it’s pointing to the local computer instead of an internet site.

    You can find it here: https://zenodo.org/record/5112546

    1. I already see one problem with that paper…

      “There is no epidemiological link to any other locality in Wuhan,
      including the BSL-4 campus of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) located south of the Yangtze and the subject of considerable speculation”

      Dr. Shi Zheng-li, the lab director, said they conducted their coronavirus research in their BSL2 and 3 labs, not 4. Their level 4 lab was only used after the outbreak began, for SARS-CoV-2. The other lab is located further north, closer to the clusters.

      Shi Zheng-li Q&A with Science Magazine:
      “The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories.
      After the BSL-4 laboratory in our institute has been put into operation, in accordance with the management regulations of BSL-4 laboratory, we have trained the scientific researchers in the BSL-4 laboratory using the low-pathogenic coronaviruses as model viruses, which aims to prepare for conducting the experimental activities of highly pathogenic microorganisms. After the COVID-19 outbreak, our country has stipulated that the cultivation and the animal infection experiments of SARS-CoV-2 should be carried out in BSL-3 laboratory or above. Since the BSL-3 laboratories in our institute do not have the hardware conditions to conduct experiments on non-human primates, and in order to carry out the mentioned research, our institute had applied to the governmental authorities and obtained the qualification to conduct experiments on SARS-CoV-2 for Wuhan P4 laboratory, in which the rhesus monkey animal model, etc. have been carried out. ”

      https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Shi%20Zhengli%20Q&A.pdf

  17. Heard a pretty barfy interview with Fauci on NPR the other day. Going on about how unfair Rand’s accusation of lying was. But zero discussion or questions about what the actual accusation was or examination of its validity.

    1. As I said below, any definition that says gain-of-function wasn’t done pretty much says that this virus isn’t novel and functions pretty much the same as any other corona or flu virus.

      1. As I said below, any definition that says gain-of-function wasn’t done pretty much says that this virus isn’t novel and functions pretty much the same as any other corona or flu virus.

        Gain of function research means that you carry out experiments that have the potential to create novel functions, not that you necessarily succeed. Replacing the spike protein of one virus with that of another certainly is gain-of-function research.

        And I don’t know what you mean by “this virus”. The paper in question doesn’t describe SARS-CoV-2. The question at this point is whether the lab carried out gain of function research contrary to Fauci’s assurances, not whether SARS-CoV-2 is specifically the result of such research. Even if SARS-CoV-2 were completely natural, Fauci still has lied.

    2. If you’re listening to NPR, you’re doing it wrong.

      1. I still tune in from time to time (every few months maybe) to see what normal people hear on the news.

        1. “to see what ‘normal people’ hear on the news.”

          I suppose those are the people who have “follow the science” [as promulgated by MSM], live in the village [and wear masks as often as possible], and generally have good thoughts.

  18. Wow, look at the comments.

    The consensus among Trump cultists is that Fauci is the liar!

    Who would have thought that?

    Like Condi Rice said “No one could have thought of that!” (hijacking planes and flying them into skyscrapers).

    1. What’s your argument? That the virus isn’t novel? That it’s just like any other corona or flu virus?

      1. I don’t have a side on this.

        My question is “What is Rand Paul’s motive?”

        I suspect Fauci wasn’t reading the TEAM RED playbook and RP wants to damage him politically.

        It isn’t working.

        Rand Paul is a politician and people hate politicians.

        1. turd lies; it’s what he does. If he cites stats, they are either outright lies or cherry-picked such that they are meaningless.
          turd lies in every post, as in this one. turd is entirely too stupid to even understand he is lying.

        2. I don’t have a side on this.

          I suspect Fauci wasn’t reading the TEAM RED playbook and RP wants to damage him politically.

          Your lies aren’t working any better than Fauci’s.

        3. Rand Paul is a politician and people hate politicians.

          Fauci is a politician, too. Unlike Paul, Fauci is pretending to be an apolitical scientist.

          1. I bet Paul has more medical practice than Fauci.

            1. Fauxi has never practiced medicine. He hasn’t treated a patient since he was a resident over 50 years ago.

            2. Definitely, he went to the NIH straight out of his residency. It should be pointed out though that this doesn’t really mean anything when it comes to which one of them is correct (or more correct), what matters is the evidence.

              1. Disagree. It’s clear that there is a matter of interpretation here. Given that, credentials matter.

                1. Except, by your own metrics (MD is not a scientific degree), neither of them have a science degree. And unlike Rand Paul, who did go into practice, Fauci went into a research position and did good scientific research, which means he would, again, by your standards, have better credentials than Paul on the science. But again, this is fallacious, what matters is the evidence and what inferences (that is what interpretation is) logically follow from said evidence.

                  1. But “the science” isn’t what is at issue. The dispute between Paul and Fauci is over whether Fauci violated policy by directing funding to “gain of function” research. What “gain of function” means is not a matter of fact.

        4. “I don’t have a side, now let me argue for my side!”

          -SPB2

    2. Most of their comments are along the line of the mainstream media says Fauci is right, so he must be lying.

      Nobody looking at the actual evidence, except Ken. Funny thing about Ken is I have commented on his posts about the Wuhan lab many times citing virologists who say there is too much genetic difference between COVID-19 and the viruses being experimented with in the Wuhan lab for the former to have been created from the latter, and Ken’s response was to mute me and accuse me of “shitposting”. From his comments above, it’s clear he never bothered to look at my citations.

      1. “Most of their comments are along the line of the mainstream media says Fauci is right, so he must be lying.”

        You should try reading before making a public ass of yourself. Again.

      2. So why all the suppression from China, if there is nothing to hide? Is that just what communists do?

        1. Yes, it is just what communists do.

      3. LOL at assuming we know ALL the viruses being experimented with.

      4. Lol. God damn the lies that come from your mouth. Rand posited Faucis earlier comment about NO gain of resarch funding and then cited a paper showing NIH funded gain of research. That is an absolute lie by Fauci.

        The fact that you have to distract from a simple example lf a lie proves you are desperate due to politics.

    3. turd lies; it’s what he does. If he cites stats, they are either outright lies or cherry-picked such that they are meaningless.
      turd lies in every post, as in this one. turd is entirely too stupid to even understand he is lying.

    4. This is where we’re at.

      Dr. Fauci is lying on this topic because 1. he’s a Democrat, 2. he’s lied in the past (like every human being ever, duh), 3. Trump didn’t like him, and 4. lots of left-wingers love him. And all of the rest of the argumentation is about how to arrive at that conclusion in a manner that doesn’t sound so gauchely tribal. So we’ll have endless arguments about what is or is not “gain of function” research, and what the NIH funding really did or didn’t do. But none of that *really* matters in any sort of objective manner. In the end, the argument will be adjusted to fit the desired conclusion.

      That is where we are at in this tribalistic, post-truth world of discourse. To be a tribal member in good standing, it is not enough to be in harmony with the ideology of the tribe. One must also accept uncritically the myths and narratives of the tribe. It is not enough to oppose mask mandates, one must also accept the myth that Dr. Fauci is a liar who had a hand in creating the global pandemic in the first place. It is not enough to oppose mandatory vaccinations, one must also accept the myth that the vaccines are dangerous and the ones refusing to get the vaccines mostly have very good, sound, and legitimate reasons to do so.

      There is no such thing anymore as defense of truth for its own sake. Instead, defense of truth is “code” for defending the tribe who stands to benefit the most from the truth. If truth stands in the way of tribal interests, then truth must be swept aside. It does not matter what the truth of the matter is whether Dr. Fauci lied, or whether the NIH funded gain of function research in Wuhan, or even how the virus actually started. It must be insisted that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, directly enabled by NIH funding gain-of-function research personally approved by Dr. Fauci himself. Any other narrative, regardless of whether it is truthful or not, can only be a benefit to Dr. Fauci (and therefore also to the left-wingers who love him) so the truth must be discarded, whatever it is, in favor of this pleasing tribal narrative.

      1. Funny thing is Fauci is not known to be a Democrat. He has avoided taking any public partisan positions. Yet, I’m sure many believe he a Democrat because it feels like he is.

        1. Fauci is an opportunist. That’s why he has survived this long, despite screwing up over and over again.

        2. Well this is a lie. See his MSNBC interviews and his statements about Biden vs trump.

          Can you be honest in anything?

          1. No she can’t.

      2. Well reasoned.

        HOW MUCH IS SOROS IS PAYING YOU?

        1. He gets his $.50. Why, do you get more for the kiddie porn links?

          1. Only an absolute retard like shriek would say that Jeff’s post was “well reasoned”.

        2. Out of curiosity, how much are you getting paid to shitpost here, Buttplug?

      3. one must also accept the myth that Dr. Fauci is a liar

        WTF are you going on about? A sitting senator who has everything to lose if he is wrong has accused Fauci of lying. It is not a myth.

        People are jumping up and down saying “I told you so!” because they have indeed been telling you for 18 months that Fauci is a liar.

        Trying to convince people this is tribal is gaslighting.

        1. That’s what he does.

          Oh, and completely ignores facts that upset his apple cart.

        2. Actually Paul has nothing to lose because he can’t be proven wrong. He has a lot to gain because his accusations are popular with republicans. I think he is not being dishonest. I also do not think Fauci is being dishonest. Both believe in what they are saying. It is just a matter of semantics.

          1. As I mentioned above, if this is a stunt by Paul, I will lose respect for him. He may not be able to be proven wrong, but he could be proven right if there is enough evidence.

          2. Except you watched fauci in real time switch his saying from any gain of research to this (covid) gain of research during testimony.

            1. It was not a dumb thing to do. Paul has to admit he is not alleging that. He wants to make it clear and swat the ball back so people do not get the impression, and many do, that the experiment created Covid. I didn’t watch it but I believe at some point he denied that it was GOF.

              As we have here gone back and forth over it depends how you define it. Is it any function or is it ability to infect humans. It has been used both ways. So neither of them are lying.

              1. Fauci, and you, are lying.

      4. Dr. Fauci is lying on this topic because 1. he’s a Democrat, 2. he’s lied in the past (like every human being ever, duh), 3. Trump didn’t like him, and 4. lots of left-wingers love him.

        Look at you strawman.

        Dr. Fauci is lying on this topic because 1. He funded gain-of-function research into Coronaviruses in Wuhan 2. He lied about funding gain-of-function research into Coronaviruses in Wuhan 3. He then admitted he funded research into Coronaviruses in Wuhan, but tried to lawyer the meaning of “gain-of-function” 4. lots of chemjeffs love him because something something orangemanbad

        1. I honestly don’t get how partisan one has to be to see the statement Fauci made and be directly contradicted by a gain of research study with NIH funding. They are inherently incompatible.

          Yet the leftists here persist.

      5. Or because he simply lied you fat fuck.

    5. The consensus among Fauci himself, in all his own words, is that Fauci is a known, confessed, unrepentant, and proud liar.

  19. To some extent, this controversy is somewhat reminiscent of President Bill Clinton’s notorious sophistic dodge, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

    To some extent, sure. To a much greater extent, Bill Clinton was talking about having lied about getting a blowjob that only two people would know anything about directly. Whereas Fauci is talking about a virus that killed 4 million people. If they were actively trying to avoid gain of function research, they fucked up really, really badly. To the point that, if ever a higher administrator deserved to be fired for a fuck up, this is it.

    1. Fauci should have been fired for his previous lies– lies he admitted to telling. This would be more on the criminal charges side of the coin.

  20. “It is worth noting that an international team of researchers posted earlier this month a preprint analysis that finds that most of the evidence strongly points to a natural spillover of the virus”

    This is beyond ridiculous. No natural origin for Covid-19 has been found. The WIH is at the very epicenter of a global pandemic and was engaged in gain-of-function research on viruses that are almost identical to Covid-19.. The CCP has engaged in a massive cover up and prevented a full investigation by blocking access to relevant data at the WIH and relevant patient data while silencing anybody (journalists, scientists, medical personnel and citizens on social media) who might provide other evidence. All of this prevents anybody from making the above determination by “an international team of researchers.” And it’s also extremely strong circumstantial evidence that the virus originated at the WIH.

    1. “viruses that are almost identical to Covid-19”

      Not so. They were quite genetically different.

      1. I see a claim but no evidence.

        1. And I question his ability to interpret any such evidence.

          When I hear someone say that virus deemed to be within the same viral subfamily are “genetically different” I think, yeah that’s possible.

          When they say “quite genetically different” I begin to wonder exactly what they mean or if they have a clue what they are talking about. And absent anything at or above college level microbiology courses it is going to be the latter.

          1. “And I question his ability to interpret any such evidence…”

            Yeah, Mike’s demonstrated about the same quality intellect as M4e; not anyone with whom you’d discuss anything of importance.

            1. They gots tribes [and, for some, a load of TDS to work off]; which is why so many of these “arguments” stem from an apparently very dire need to support the team and to marshal the “facts” accordingly.

              Of course the deliberate obstruction by the Chinese has and will continue to contribute to a very high degree of uncertainty [and an equally high degree of suspicion] but to definitely conclude that Fauci’s organization funded research that resulted in COVID 19 pandemic, would likely make a difference in the next election; but if you keep obfuscating and using enough sophistry, it can be muddled to the point of ineffectiveness.

              None of this is about objective facts; it is about winning and losing.

      2. Not so. They were quite genetically different.

        So what you’re saying is COVID-19 is completely unlike any other virus found in nature?

      3. My problem with this line of thinking is that we are still talking about a Chinese state-run virology institute. I wouldn’t trust them to admit that any of the coronaviruses they worked could be a precursor to COVID-19. That is not to say that they did work with such a virus or that the viruses that they do admit to working with can be accurately described as genetically too dissimilar to be the precursor to COVID, but having lived there, I can tell you you should never trust a Chinese government official.

        1. You hit upon a huge issue everyone appears to be ignoring. The assumption that we have remotely all of the actual evidence is absurd.

          1. And never will which is simply absence of evidence, not evidence. We also have no evidence at this point of a definitive animal vector.

            All of this is political posturing at this point.

            1. 1. Team Blue does not want it to be traced to the Wuhan Institute of Virology; they’ve taken their side on the issue, “followed the science,” and to prove otherwise would be politically disadvantageous.

              2. Team Red very much wants it to be traced to the Chinese experiments, and political bonus points if can be tied to Fauci’s grants.

              3. The Chines don’t want you to know what happened, and apparently because it would reflect badly on them.

              4. Regardless, no one is blaming bats or pangolins any more; though that wet market a few hundred yards from the lab certainly was convenient at the time.

            2. Agreed, absence of evidence isn’t evidence, and I do make that point (though not with those words) in my post. However, that goes both ways, just because those particular coronaviruses being studied at the WIV are genetically dissimilar does not provide any evidence that they weren’t working on one that was. And of course, it should go without saying that the CCP has a long history of lying and covering up things that would make them look bad.

              Suffice to say, when the Chinese government says, “We weren’t working on coronaviruses related to SARS-CoV2,” I don’t believe them. Note, however, that this is different from saying that I believe they were working on such coronaviruses.

  21. Well, Fauci lied.
    Fauci said he lied.
    Then he lied about lying.
    What difference, at this point, does it make?

  22. Those Chinese researchers took the known WIV1 coronavirus, the spike proteins of which already give it the ability to infect human cells using the ACE2 receptor, and then replaced it with spike proteins from newly discovered bat coronaviruses. The goal was to see if the spike proteins from the novel coronaviruses would be sufficient to replace the function of the WIV1 spike protein.

    This is clearly “gain-of-function research”, since the objective is to see what functions the virus may gain by replacing the spike protein. “Gain of function” doesn’t just refer to “gain a novel ability to infect human cells”, nor does “gain of function research” mean that the research actually produced a novel function, merely that it is designed to potentially create novel functions.

    but Paul seemed to be suggesting later in the hearing that the COVID-19 coronavirus could be a gain of function virus developed by the WIV that leaked from the institute’s laboratories

    Paul was making the point that the published research is gain of function research and that it is plausible that the WIV used the same kind of techniques to construct SARS-CoV-2.

    Fauci’s response is the red herring that the published research does not describe the construction of SARS-CoV-2, which is true but that wasn’t Paul’s claim.

    Fauci lied, and Paul’s statements were factually accurate and logically consistent.

    1. But it “could” have happened naturally, or so goes the counter argument.

      1. Fauci isn’t accused of lying about the SARS-CoV-2 origin, he is accused of lying about funding gain-of-function research.

        The WIV clearly was conducting US-funded gain-of-function research in 2017 because they published papers on it.

        Even if SARS-CoV-2 subsequently arose naturally, it wouldn’t change the fact that Fauci lied about the 2017 research.

        1. The leftists here keep trying to change the argument to save fauci. His direct statement was on any gain of research. As you stated.

  23. So who is lying? Both Paul and Fauci can cite experts who agree with their interpretations of what the NIH funded at the WIV. Consequently, both men can reasonably believe that they are each telling the truth while the other is a dishonest fraud.

    Fauci, obviously.

    Because, of the two, only Fauci needs an ‘interpretation’ that calls adding a function to existing viruses something other than ‘gain of function’ research. Paul is simply describing the things Fauci needs ‘interpreted’.

  24. NIH did provide $600,000 to the WIV, funneled through the EcoHealth Alliance research group, to study the risk that more bat-borne coronaviruses, like the 2003 outbreak of the SARS virus.

    EcoHealth Alliance is a US-based[1] non-governmental organization with a stated mission of protecting people, animals, and the environment from emerging infectious diseases. The nonprofit is focused on research that aims to prevent pandemics and promote conservation in hotspot regions worldwide.

    1. Why would researchers do gain-of-function work on potentially dangerous pathogens?

      Gain-of-function experiments may help researchers test scientific theories, develop new technologies and find treatments for infectious diseases. For example, in 2003, when the original SARS-CoV outbreak occurred, researchers developed a method to study the virus in the laboratory. One of the experiments was to grow the virus in mice so they could study it. This work led to a model for researching the virus and testing potential vaccines and treatments.

      Gain-of-function research that focuses on potential pandemic pathogens has been supported on the premise that it will help researchers better understand the evolving pathogenic landscape, be better prepared for a pandemic response and develop treatments and countermeasures.

      https://theconversation.com/why-gain-of-function-research-matters-162493

      1. So we’re now at the “It really isn’t bad” stage of apologetics?

        1. It’s so harmless it’s banned in the states for no reason at all.

      2. Gain-of-function research that focuses on potential pandemic pathogens has been supported on the premise that it will help researchers better understand the evolving pathogenic landscape, be better prepared for a pandemic response and develop treatments and countermeasures.

        And as proof of its utility, just look at the bang-up response to the novel coronavirus!

      3. Sullum white knighting for a Federal apparatchik who cannot admit he fucked up.

      4. Sure, but the issue is not really whether GOF research is a good idea or not, well at least from my perspective. The problem is sending taxpayer money to a Chinese state-run virology research laboratory. As a libertarian, I would generally argue against taxpayer money going to almost any scientific research, but this is bad for reasons beyond the standard libertarian arguments, and we should not deny it.

      5. To the degree that it is carried out at all, gain-of-function research on lethal pathogens should be carried out in the US under extreme safety measures.

        The US should not support such research in China in any form.

        1. As it was already underway, Obama banned GOF in the US in 2014.

          So they sent it to China along with the funding.

          Trumps MAGA unbanned US GOF in 2017 but the work on COVID continued in Wuhan anyways..

    2. The nonprofit is focused on research that aims to prevent pandemics and promote conservation in hotspot regions worldwide.

      Not sure where you are going with your posts, but I think we can definitively say that if COVID-19 was a result of this research, they didn’t just miss the target, they shot a bystander through both lungs.

      1. they shot a 4,000,000+ bystanders through both lungs.

        FIFY.

  25. Congressional inquisitions are detestable. 100% political posturing, 0% relevant content.

    That said, any exercise that covers Fauci in feces is ok by me.

  26. Even if you take the most benign and charitable interpretation of events, that any money we gave them was intended purely for “good research”, the truth is that we have no fucking idea what the hell they’re really doing over there. If Fauci was fully transparent and honest he’d just admit this, but he’s as big a world class bullshit artist as any bureaucrat you’ll ever see.

    The real question is why the fuck are we giving the ChiComs any money at all? Please note that these assholes are still officially claiming to the entire world that their country (population 1.4 billion) has had a lower raw total of coronavirus deaths than Cost Rica (population 5 million).

    Not even Reason’s most disingenuous fake libertarians like Ron Bailey and Jacob Sullum would have the balls to try try to claim that THAT has even the slightest credibility. The ChiComs are NOT our friends, quite the opposite. There’s no reason at all to trust a single word those fuckers say about anything.

    1. ” the truth is that we have no fucking idea what the hell they’re really doing over there.”

      AND we never will know what really happened over there, or if all the money we threw at them is in any way to blame.

      Government UNACCOUNTABILITY used to be a problem, but when it’s Fauci vs. Paul none of the writers here can muster much concern.

    2. The grant was to ecohealth which concerns itself with dealing with epidemics. They gave a grant, not much by these matters, to the Wuhan lab because they were studying coronavirus in bats. There are not many high level labs and virologists in the world and they are the leading experts in these viruses. The results were published which is the paper Rand Paul was referring to.

      They didn’t give money to the Chinese government.

      1. “The Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences is a research institute on virology administered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, which reports to the State Council of the People’s Republic of China.”

        Sounds like a Chinese government entity to me.

        1. A lab which reports to the government which is pretty much everything in China. Almost any lab in the US is tied to the government. So if I give money to Stanford am I supporting the US government? They get 75% percent of their funding from the government. Of course they report to the government.

          It is a moot point anyway. The grant went to academic research. Not to support communism.

          1. The grant went to academic research. Not to support communism.

            Apparently you missed the lesson where they taught how communism works.

        2. Sounds like a Chinese government entity to me.

          It’s Echospinner. He’s got half a clue and will do his damnedest to convince you he’s got a full clue, even if that means demonstrating he’s got absolutely no clue.

          Case in point, he’ll say that Stanford gets 75% of their research funding from the US government and say “Of course they report to the US government.” Like he’s got the first clue about Stanford’s finances, let alone ever given a research dissertation or applied for a grant by reporting his results to anyone, let alone a Ph.D. committee, all of whom hold government jobs.

      2. “…They didn’t give money to the Chinese government…”

        You are either attempting a bit of sophistry, or ignorant concerning the CCP/government.

      3. I still want to know why all research of this nature isn’t done on Antarctica.

  27. Am I going to trust a lying grandstanding pos that is Paul or a respected scientist with half a century of research under his belt?

    Hmm, decisions decisions.

    1. Nope, you, as a lying piece of lefty shit, are going to poison the well; exactly as expected.

    2. Why trust either?

    3. https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1417821451344760833

      I don’t know who is right, but one of these people checked four boxes for lying:

      1. Word-thinking (“not gain of function”)
      2. Attack the critic personally
      3. Change the topic
      4. Anger when trapped

    4. You are apparently going to trust a lying grandstanding pos opportunist who has been responsible for screwing up the AIDS response; his name is Fauci.

  28. Was It GOF or not GOF?

    Is a hot dog a sandwich?

    1. Since open face sandwiches are definitely sandwiches, so is a hotdog.. My understanding is that all all sandwiches evolved from throwing some crap on top of some bread… This is one of the worst attempts at pendantics ever. Cmon man!

      Also, hang fauci and shi (hi, fbi)

      1. Actually most people claim that a hot dog is not a sandwich. It is a hot dog. It is a big debate.

        Personally I think it is a unique and delicious creation on its own.

        And that thing they serve in Chicago is not a pizza. It is a casserole.

        https://dscout.com/people-nerds/is-a-hot-dog-a-sandwich-great-debate

        1. Actually Montreal is correct, and you’re a worthless shill.

  29. So what if he lied?

    Oh, because it’s a crime to lie.

  30. “a 2017 study in which WIV researchers reported recombining several bat coronaviruses to check how easily the modified viruses might be able to infect human cells. In their article, the Chinese researchers thanked the NIH for its support of the research.”

    Is fauci saying his organization was unaware of that report? If not, he did lie to Congress.

    Because that report demonstrates that GOF was clearly the objective at Wuhan.

    If fauci did not support GOF at Wuhan, where is his organization’s response to that report?

    1. If fauci did not support GOF at Wuhan, where is his organization’s response to that report?

      The classic response of a virtuous man, “It depends on your definition of what the word ‘is’ is.”

      1. Not even that subtle….

        “our internal experts determined that it was not GOF so we could grant these funds”

        It is a tautology. Pretending it’s anything else is silly.

  31. unethical assholes require labs for unethical shit.

  32. The virus is a hoax, a mere seasonal flu, nothing to worry about.

    Also, the virus is a disaster that has killed four million people, and it’s all Dr. Fauci’s fault.

    I wonder if you people can fit these two contradictory thoughts into a single sentence and save us all the time. Work on it.

    1. Please quote from where the same person has said both of those things.

      1. We were always at war with East Asia.

        It’s nice when it’s literal, isn’t it?

        1. It was communism that declared war on Western society, you worthless piece of shit.

          But then, you never bothered to read Marx, did you? You take it on faith.

          1. When did this happen?

            And who cares. Capitalism won. It’s time to move on to the problems of 2021 and not 1950.

    2. The virus is deadly and you should all social distance.

      Unless it’s a BLM riot, then it’s OK.

      1. That wasn’t my position, as I stated many times.

        Is your entire moral worldview based on the premise that it’s OK for you to be in a death cult as long as someone, somewhere is being a hypocrite?

        1. Fun fact: the Jonestown cult that drank the original koolaid were left wing socialist that emphasized racial equality.

          Their excuse: the racists were going to parachute in, kill the adults, and convert the children to “fascism”.

          I bet the kids, given the choice, would have accepted as optional into normal American families, no matter how “fascist” they were. But you lefties: scared to death of the “fascists” with “parachutes!”

        2. Anyway, that was the stated position of “experts” cited by the progressive left.

          You didn’t stand with them? Gee, I wonder why.

    3. You people?

      1. If you are not a person who once vigorously downplayed the threat of the virus only to now call it a global disaster that’s all Tony Fauci’s fault, then I’m not talking to you.

        1. 1. Fauci funded gain-of-function research into Coronaviruses in Wuhan.

          2. It’s looking like the Covid-19 virus which first emerged in Wuhan was 100% laboratory engineered.

          3. The doctors that published the study that the WHO used to say that the Covid-19 virus was natural, failed to disclose that they were involved in gain-of-function research, into Coronaviruses, in Wuhan.

          Fauci is a fucking Supervillain.

          1. I bet the fucker goes home at night and puts on steeled-toed boots and kicks puppies to death and sleeps like a baby afterwards, wearing diaper and sucking on a pacifier.

            No, wait, that was Tony.

            1. Change “pacifier” to “dick” and then that’s Tony.

        2. Fauci may or may not have contributed to the creation of SARS-CoV-2, but he clearly has lied to Congress repeatedly and should be held accountable for his lies.

          The virus isn’t a global disaster, but it clearly led to tens of thousands of premature deaths.

          1. Maybe not a disaster as far as death toll, but it is a global economic disaster.

            1. The government response to Covid-19 has created a global economic disaster.

              The death toll of a few million mostly old and/or sick people is a tragedy but has little to no negative economic consequences.

              1. a few million mostly old and/or sick people is a tragedy

                I pointed out last year that COVID doesn’t kill breeders. It is certainly not the existential threat that Fauci painted it as when making those recommendations that shut down the world’s largest economy. It actually relieved burden from breeders supporting elderly parents or who inherited because of the deaths.

                In other words, it was a Progressive’s wet dream.

          2. Should you be held accountable for your lies? What about Tucker Carlson?

            Stop killing people.

            1. What has Tucker lied about?

              You probably don’t even know. You just hate him because he rides herd on your corporatist oligarchs and Davos teat-suckers.

            2. Should you be held accountable for your lies? What about Tucker Carlson?

              Everybody should be held accountable for their lies, as the law provides.

              Fauci lied to Congress. There are stiff penalties for that. They should be imposed.

        3. Again, please quote just one such person.

    4. I wonder if you people can fit these two contradictory thoughts into a single sentence and save us all the time. Work on it.

      No contradiction. I said it was a naturally-occuring flu. It was you, the CDC, and Fauci that said it’s a completely novel and unprecedentedly deadly virus. Are you saying we shouldn’t take you and Fauci at your word?

      1. I said it was a naturally-occuring flu.

        Actually, I didn’t even say that. I said it was not exceedingly more deadly than naturally occuring flu and, given the death toll, it’s not.

  33. Fauci is clearly lying. Why is NIH going through a third-party to distribute funds? If I am going launder money, I want it to pass through as many hands as possible to make it impossible to trace. This is exactly why NIH uses a third-party. And, just so happens, the person charged to lead a team of investigators (Peter Daszak) into the lab-leak theory IS the head of the third-party organization that gave the money to WIV. Doesn’t take a genius to link a few dots. Fauci is a liar and needs to be jailed, or at the very least, fired.

    1. And don’t forget that that entire reason they were sending the money to China is because that sort of research was deemed to dangerous to do here in the US.

      1. too dangerous

        1. True or not there was nowhere else it could have been done. They already had the bat SARS viruses which they had collected themselves and had been working on them. You can’t just ship those to another lab.

  34. I thought this was an excellent article on the circumstantial evidence for natural vs. a lab leak theory.
    The author comes down on the lab leak theory side of the fence. He has some good arguments about the labs practices, doing coronavirus research at BSL2 when it should have been handled with BSL4 protocols.
    https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/?fbclid=IwAR1-qRsxS5xQJWSaVGjdN7B9Vc9TllbYRvnkD2aiqDa7kk-ZiGVUdvxFSH8

  35. Whether or not the NIH intended > to fund GoF research doesn’t matter. They should not trust China to play by the rules.

    1. The NIH clearly intended to fund, and did fund, gain-of-function research; that’s clear from Fauci’s previous statements and the record.

      The only question we don’t know the answer to is whether that funding specifically also funded genetic engineering that led to SARS-CoV-2, or whether it only funded genetic engineering of other viruses.

  36. I want it to be interesting, but I’m afraid it’s just mind-numbing, that FOX News junkies can only seem to recognize a threat that comes in the form of human agents.

    Maybe China engineered the virus or maybe it didn’t. It kills people either way, right? It’s just garden variety small-brain crap: natural disasters do not compute. Only Team Bad Ape computes. It’s the entire malfunction of rationality that underlies the notion that “Government force is bad… except when it’s protecting me from other people.” There’s absolutely no reason to distinguish between threats from other human agents and threats from viruses or climate change. That’s simply a category failure of simpletons.

    I guess the interesting part is how this mental state is weaponized for the benefit of a political party. It must be quite a bonanza for Republicans to find out that their followers need not possess any instinct for consistency. If only they could use their power for good: They should have blamed black people for the virus from the start. We’d see vaccines in arms then. Or they could have just called it AIDS 2.

    1. That made zero sense even for you, Tony. Have you been taking lessons from Hihn lately?

      1. He’s trying (again) to pretend that Republicans are tribal, monkey-brained idiots who can’t properly assess threats to their existence (and he’s not) while simultaneously pretending that no less than 3 government agencies claiming themselves that they failed to the tune of 4 million lives is no more interesting than how many nits he can pick off his mate today.

        1. ” Republicans are tribal, monkey-brained idiots who can’t properly assess threats to their existence”

          No, you’re thinking of PBS and Fox News anchors.

        2. Humans are tribal monkey-brained idiots. Only Republicans have managed to parasitize itself on the low-educated rural population who lack sufficient prefrontal cortext-based tools to overcome this perpetual cause of human disasters.

      2. Pretty sure shitstain taught Hihn.

      3. You’re one of those “the age of consent is bullshit” libertarians, aren’t you?

        1. How the hell did you get to that conclusion from where we were, you gibbering idiot.

          Anyway, aren’t you the guy that was squealing “prudery!” regarding prepubescent transgender pole dancing? Didn’t you shit yourself over the opposition to “Cuties”.

    2. We aren’t talking about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, we’re talking about whether Fauci lied to Congress.

      It is clear that WIV was conducting US-funded gain-of-function research in 2017 because they published on it. Fauci knew about this, so he clearly was lying to Congress about it.

      Whether that research succeeded in creating gain-of-function viruses or whether it is related to SARS-CoV-2 is irrelevant to the simple fact that Fauci lied.

      1. Yes, let’s drop everything and spend our time finding out if Fauci lied once. Insurrections and pandemics are old news. One guy’s alleged infraction you learned from some Tucker Carlson brain diarrhea. That matters more than millions of dead and democracy in North America.

        You should be angry at FOX News for what it has done to your brain. You should sue.

        1. Yes, let’s drop everything and spend our time finding out if Fauci lied once.

          We don’t need to “drop everything” or “spend time”. All we need to do is fire Fauci.

          One guy’s alleged infraction you learned from some Tucker Carlson brain

          I don’t listen to Tucker Carlson, I just listened to Fauci’s testimony, and it’s clear he lied.

    3. “There’s absolutely no reason to distinguish between threats from other human agents and threats from viruses”

      What I don’t understand is the people who can’t recognize a threat that comes from democracy.

      1. You mean the fact that it doesn’t always give you everything you want?

  37. Where’s the mystery ?

    The gain of function research was published in the open literature, and the French consortium that designed and provided components for the Wuhan lab’s P4 pathogen containment system began warning its operators about the risks of containment security protocol violations over a year before Covid-19 appeared.

  38. Robert Garry, a Tulane University virologist pointed out to Newsweek that the Wuhan experiments were done to study whether the bat coronaviruses could infect humans. What they didn’t do, he argued, was make the viruses “any better” at infecting people, which would be necessary for gain-of-function research. In other words, Garry does not think that the WIV research increased the virulence or transmissibility of the modified viruses.
    -They went from not infecting humans to infecting humans, how is that not ” ‘any better’ at infecting people”; it is infinitely more infective to humans.

    1. I think the idea is that there were two viruses: A and B. A is known to be able to infect humans. B is unknown. So, they replaced part of A with a part of B. If the hybrid can still infect humans than that would indicate that B is evolutionarily closer to being able to jump start a pandemic than if the hybrid turned out to be a dud.

      If you look at it as A getting a piece swapped out for a piece that is not known to work, then I can sort of see the argument. I do believe though that it would need to be established what evidence existed that B’s function was no better at infecting humans than A’s function. Because if you really have no idea how good B’s function is at infecting humans, then you are potentially adding function to A if it turns out that B is better. There is also a philosophical argument that swapping A’s function with B’s function is exactly equivalent to swapping B’s body with A’s body. As B is presumably unable to infect humans, swapping the body of A into B is adding function to it.

      1. Actually both A and B can infect humans. That is the crux of the debate. What they did was create a hybrid where A now has the Corona spike protein and tested it on cell cultures to see if it infected.

        The question they were looking at is if the spike protein alone was sufficient to cause infection in the cultured cells.

        The debate about GOF is that since A could already infect human cells it didn’t gain any function it just swapped one way of getting there for another. The second argument is that there is a big difference between a cell culture line and an actual organism.

        Others insist it does constitute GOF. It really comes down to how you define the term as there is no solid definition.

  39. I’m walking past the only zoo within a hundred miles, and I see a zebra crossing the road. Is it unreasonable to infer that it came from the zoo? Occam, call your office.

    1. Excellent analogy.

    2. Not if you are in Kenya. Or in between the zoo and the nearby animal park.

      Occam’s razor has limits when considering equal possibilities.

      You could use it to make the opposite conclusion. Which is more common, zoonotic infection or pandemic caused by lab leak? There are lots of the former and zero known of the latter. It would still be a false conclusion as there are some compelling circumstances to support the lab hypothesis.

      1. “Not if you are in Kenya. Or in between the zoo and the nearby animal park.”

        Are you trying to prove that you’re capable of Tony-level idiocy?

      2. The nearby animal park that houses zebras, yet is not a zoo?

  40. As a university researcher this is by far the best article I have read on this subject on any outlet. It correctly points out that, yes, the NIH did fund the WIV, and yes, they were (and still probably are) genetically altering coronaviruses. The problem is defining what constitutes gain of function research. Whenever you genetically alter a virus you are going to alter its function. By definition it will either gain or lose some part of its function, so in reality, all alteration of function research is, by definition, gain of function research. Combine that with the fact that the results are almost impossible to predict, and there is the giant grey area. I suspect that the WIV altered the original virus that caused this mess (which no longer exists) and they had a lapse in their BL4 safety protocol. The PRC has had plenty of time to scrub the records and samples at the WIV, and they aren’t cooperating anyway, so we will most certainly never know for sure. I don’t want to seem callous, but if this was meant to be a bioweapon, (1) you usually don’t release it in your own country, and (2) it was a pretty badly designed one. I’m sure it is small comfort for the families of those who died from the virus, but this could have been much, much worse. It could still get worse.

    1. If I was designing a bioweapon, I also wouldn’t do it at a facility full of researchers who invite in outsiders, like to publish their techniques, and take money from geopolitical rivals. I’d be doing it at a base with shoot on sight orders, that handles logistics for whatever their equivalent of the VA is to make diversion easy, and giving the researchers cover stories that make them look as boring as possible, and ensuring that they know to not even hint at their true activities.

      1. Just because the WIV publishes their work and worked with outsiders (they don’t anymore — the PRC government makes sure of that) doesn’t mean that they publish everything they do, or that anyone outside of the WIV, PRC government, and PRC military actually “sees” everything they do. After all, they are the only BL4 facility in China working with coronaviruses (at least the only one we know about). There are plenty of labs in the US that have funding and projects from the DOD and other branches of the military, many of which are not openly published. Now, the ones I have worked with involved tissue engineering and advanced IP, thus the limits on publicity. I don’t know of anyone working with the military and anything remotely involved with virology, but that’s not my field.

        My point is: Don’t expect complete transparency from all research facilities. In the PRC, don’t even make the erroneous assumption that they are being remotely transparent. I’ve been to the PRC on research business, and between the routine censorship and the complete government control of everything you hear and see, we don’t know 10% of what goes on there.

        1. I don’t think there is any chance that they are parsing it so thinly that creating a knockout mutant would be gain of function.

          Subbing in the active site sequence from a human civic viral coat protein could be described as just “exploring the functional parameters of this sequence”… But it is a really direct form of GOF for human infectivity.

          The way I originally learned of GOF research for viruses was passaging it through several generations of intermediate hosts, to select for mutants that were more infectious among hosts closer to the target species (humans).

          Directly altering sequences suspected of increasing infectivity and virulence is even more obviously the kind of research that was placed under a funding moratorium.

          1. I just bought a Kindle tablet. Good lord, I hate this keyboard. Google has been pretty bad about late autocorrections on my phone, but this Amazon abomination is so very much worse.

            I caught most of the late changes… But how the neck does it “spell check” from “coronavirus” to “civic viral”? Coronavirus is a properly spelled and of late commonly used word, while I doubt anyone has ever used ” civic viral” in a sentence.

  41. All people and countries that took part in the creation of this pandemic virus should be given severe sanctions. Before God sent down the punishment in his own way.

    Jasa backlink

  42. What happens if it’s discovered that it’s a China-engineered bioweapon?

    Do all the dead people come back to life? Do we celebrate being right by bombing China into oblivion?

    Am I not supposed to ask these questions because the entire point is to keep your hate of some “other” so uninterrupted that your rational brain never has a chance to turn on?

    1. this looks like we’re about to get to step two of the standard process.

      1. It wasn’t engineered. Science is settled. ✔
      2. Ok, well… maybe it was engineered but it’s not as bad as you say.
      3. Yes, it was engineered, and that’s a good thing.

    2. If China engineered a bio-weapon that killed millions of people globally, then what difference, at this point, does it make?

      That’s a dumb question.

    3. Did you really just do the long form variant of “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

      Somebody please give the Tony sock back to a better puppeteer. It was never very good, but damn, son.

    4. So, you’re saying that even though we can’t do anything to China (a conclusion I, sadly, agree with) we should then just drop the issue?

      No, we need to know, and it needs to be exposed. Whatever it is.

    5. What would happen if it turns out COVID is a leaked chimera is that the US (and likely much of the world) will ban gain of function research permanently and likely broaden the prohibition to cover whatever semantic games Fauci is currently playing. Keep in mind that Fauci is very much against the current temporary hold on GoF research funding. He does not want it turn out that such research killed millions of people because he knows that would discredit the research and he believes such research is crucial for stopping future pandemics.

    6. Ah, so the liberals who grind their teeth and ashen their heads over red states passing voter integrity laws now says “what’s the point in all this China hate”.

      China effectively killed more people of color in 1.5 years than any modern white supremacist group have in the last 50 years. Many Latinos and blacks who voted religiously for the democrat party perished, thanks large in part to Cuomo sending infected people to nursing homes.

      Thus we have the answer to “do democrats REALLY care about minorities”, but we knew that right answer long before covid.

  43. How long does it take Reason staff to moderate a post?

    1. The last few times I forgot and added multiple links, I do not believe they ever showed up. I just reposted with multiple posts.

      1. Correct. One link per post or you can wait for Godot.

    2. Longer than the lifetime of the universe.

      Reason doesn’t really moderate posts here unless things get into ‘legal’ territory.

  44. As to the question “is Fauci lying?”, the answer is clearly yes. there is no question in my mind that his statements on this issue have been intended to deceive. He is clearly trying to hew to some sort of defensible version of shading the truth, but the intent to deceive really cannot be disputed. All one need do is track his position over time.

    Remember, we never funded that lab at all, long before we funded the lab for ” not gain of function” research into how corona viruses might gain infectivity to human cells.

    Anyone pretending that he isn’t lying is either deluded or a liar. Rand Paul may or may not be correct in any of the details, and I have no idea what the real story is…… But I know when I am being lied to.

    It is like when your kids start spinning a story. You don’t have to know what the truth is in order to determine that “this ain’t it”.

    1. Rand Paul may or may not be correct in any of the details, and I have no idea what the real story is…… But I know when I am being lied to.

      Rand Paul was correct on the details. Paul accused Fauci of lying about funding for gain-of-function research, and Fauci clearly did.

      Fauci tried to confuse the issue by pretending that Paul accused him of funding the creation of SARS-CoV-2, something we don’t have evidence for.

      Paul’s actual accusation is accurate and proven.

  45. So who is lying? Both Paul and Fauci can cite experts who agree with their interpretations of what the NIH funded at the WIV. Consequently, both men can reasonably believe that they are each telling the truth while the other is a dishonest fraud.

    My takeaway is that Paul can cite the NIH’s own definition of Gain-of-function and show that the work being down fits that definition.

    Fauci can cite some people who just say ‘nah, its not gain of function because I say its not’.

    IMO, the only person using Clinton’s defense is Fauci. And Clinton lied.

    But this is a pretty good article Bailey. I think you’ve laid out the evidence pretty well – I just think you didn’t have the courage to accept the unpopular conclusion it lays out.

    1. The mythical two link post, never before seen in the wild!

  46. Thanks, Jason-
    the article’s title and date speak for themselves:
    Nature Medicine

    A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence

    2015; 21(12): 1508–1513. Published online 2015 Nov 9. doi: 10.1038/nm.3985

    1. You may wish to read the abstract of this 2015 paper — it has words like “chimeric”, “ACE2 spike protein”, “prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy”.

      Read the authors list. “Ralph Baric” from UNC Chapel Hill, “Zengli Shi, Wuhan”, and a baker’s dozen additional authors, mostly from UNC Chapel Hill, one from Harvard. I believe this 2015 paper was the one mentioned as “Baric – Shi Gain of Function.pdf” in the Fauci email dump a few weeks back.

      Dare I say “Covid 1.0 was invented in 2015 (at the latest) via efforts of US AND Chinese Scientists”?

      The 2017 paper https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29190287/ featured in the recent “Paul and Fauci Do a Song And Dance on Capitol Hill” episode coincidentally has a Chinese cast. I believe this is a red herring. The basic research was done at least two years earlier, by US as well as China, working together.

      The broohaha about the WHO (!) funded what funding is also likely theatrics. What matters funding when work was done together?

  47. Ask yourself which doctor you would go to for your health and you will have the answer.

  48. [I lack spare time enough to proofread the following text. I type badly. I suffer an ocular illness that renders very difficult my reading what I type online in a little box like that in which I am typing this comment. I apologize now for any typing errors that may mar the following text.]

    Ronald Bailey’s article rests on a false premise. But that trouble ought not surprise actual scientists conversant with the pertinent fields — genetics, genetic engineering, microbiology, virology, infectious diseases…… And surely that trouble evades Mr. Bailey’s apprehension, because he is NOT a scientist of any field.

    Mr. Bailey’s higher education occurred only in economics and “philosophy.” He earned an economics B.A. (University of Virginia, 1976). And he did not earn a doctorate, or masters degree in any field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bailey (Ordinarily, I will not cite Wikipedia for aught other than apolitical, non-debatable matters like the number of subatomic particles a hydrogen atom bears. In this instance, I cite Wikipedia SOLELY for a single fact-assertion that cannot be controversial and surely does not pursue any political agenda.)

    We cannot know what “philosophy” meant in Mr. Bailey’s B.A. curriculum. But we do know that “philosophy” may involve zero or near-zero science, surely zero or near-zero science relevant to fields pertinent to his false-premised article. And, though economics training ought to include math and statistics education, one cannot do, or appreciate adequately, the science of and surrounding the Rand Paul’s interrogation of Fauci, merely because one can apply math methods to problems of economics.

    I, however, am a physician. I am quite familiar with the matters Paul and Fauci “debated.” And I know that Rand Paul described “gain of function” correctly and that Fauci never showed Paul’s description incorrect, but was reduced to asserting, emotionally, that Paul did “not know what [he was] talking about.

    A.

    Mr. Bailey asserted this: “A 2014 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy memo defines gain-of-function studies as those that “aim to increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility.” Mr. Bailey’s assertion suffers two flaws:

    (1) Mr Bailey’s assertion presumes that Obama’s White House Office of Science would state anything trustworthy respecting the gain-of-function (bioweapon) research occurring in the U.S. in 2014 — or even that any White House Office of Science is actually an office of SCIENCE,” rather than an engine of propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, fake news, concealment of government crime, violation of constitution, government violation of domestic law or international law, or……….

    RE: gain-of-function bioweapon research occurring during the Obama-Presidency years,
    COMPARE, e.g.,
    www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=DKcSNrGf4dE
    AND
    www DOT phe DOT gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/gain-of-function.pdf

    (2) Mr. Bailey’s assertion mis-describes “gain of function” — mis-describes it with errors of omission and commission.

    IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PAUL-VERSUS-FAUCI “DEBATE” (NOT “in general”), “Gain of function” research is: Using ARTIFICIAL means — E.G., gene-splicing, genetic-code-editing, or altering, repositioning, adding, or subtracting protein(s) — to cause a pathogen to become more transmissible, more toxic, more mutative, or more infectious, WHERE “infections” does NOT mean “transmissible” (or “contagious”), but means capable of producing pathological [or disease] symptom(s)/effect(s) in a human or in a specimen of another animal species.

    Why did I include the term “toxic”?

    (a) Some pathogens are “poisonous” — produce effects that parallel effect(s) of a “poison.” EXAMPLE: Corynebacterium diphtheriae [or Klebs–Löffler bacillus] can introduce into the human biosystem an exotoxin [a single, 60-kDa-molecular-weight protein formed of two peptide chains (fragment A & fragment B) bonded by a disulfide]. That exotoxin produces the more dramatic (sometimes or often fatal) symptoms of diphtheria.

    (b) The “distinction” poison-versus-pathogen lacks logical sense. Poisons and pathogens cause similar dysfunction, impairment, injury, or disintegration of organ(s) or system(s). A poison mushroom is poisonous because of a protein of its structure. Corynebacterium diphtheriae is infectious or poisonous because of a protein of its structure. SARS-CioV-2 is infectious (and produces pathological, toxic, or toxic-like effects (partly) because of a protein of its structure.

    B.

    Mr. Bailey states: “Robert Garry, a Tulane University virologist pointed out to Newsweek that the Wuhan experiments were done to study whether the bat coronaviruses could infect humans.”

    Robert Garry cannot know that the Wuhan lab did “experiments were done to study whether the bat coronaviruses could infect humans” — ONLY such experiments but not gain of function research. Outside China, no one (unless WHO hacks) knows what the Wuhan lab may have done pertinent to the faux Covid pandemic.

    Mr, Bailey misstated and misapplied Stuart Neil’s statements — misstated and misapplied Neil’s statements flagrantly. Neil’s statements do NOT exclude the gain-of-function-research possibility Rand Paul discussed.

    In apparent summary of his tweet-stream, Neil said: “The EcoHealth grant was judged by the vetting committee to not involve GoF because the investigators were REPLACING a function in a virus that ALREADY HAD human tropism rather than giving a function to one that could not infect humans.”

    I shall assume FOR ARGUMENT that in the Wuhan lab (or the U.S.-based) research’s (or researches’), the subject virus(es) were already (naturally or artificially) capable of infecting humans. Still, the virus(es) could obtain gain-of-function per (human-engineered) artificial means that alters, repositions, adds, or subtracts protein(s), so as to increase the virus’s or viruses’ transmissibility, toxicity, mutability, or infectiousness. Such “gain of function” occurs per natural mutation. So, it can occur per human intervention.

    I do not assert that the Wuhan lan did gain-of-function research that explains the existence of SARS-CoV-2. Some evidence suggest that the virus manifested in Spain: apparently Spanish virologists discovered the same virus in Spanish sewage nine months before it manifested in China, and (though I have not pursued further reports) the Spanish suggested they would investigate whether the virus was present in earlier sewage. See, e.g., www DOT reuters DOT com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science-idUSKBN23X2HQ

    Mr. Bailey asserted: “During their heated exchange, Paul backtracked a bit, ‘No one is saying that those viruses caused the pandemic. What we’re alleging is the gain of function research was going on in that lab and NIH funded it’.”

    Rand Paul did not “backtrack.” Rand Paul made clear that his point was only that the Wuhan lab was engaging in gain-of-function research, that Fauci was involved in funding that research, and that Fauci KNEW he was involved in funding gain of function research.

    Rand Paul read, aloud, to Fauci parts of text of sundry documents, including documents Fauci produced or that were produced by the NIH or Fauci’s department of the NIH. At least in sum combination, the texts’ described gain of function as I described it above. Fauci did not present anything that could rebut the sum description Rand Paul’s reading adduced. Rather, Fauci simply asserted that Rand Paul — a physician — did not know what he “was talking about.”

    Fascinating. Fauci pretends to be a virologist. Actually, he was not trained in virology. He completed an internal medicine residency and had no other post-graduate medical education. Fauci rose to his “high” position with political maneuverings, not with pertinent expertise.

    Just so, publically and in medical community communications, Fauci has uttered many “scientific” or “medical” ERRORS and has had to correct his errors many times — perhaps especially in the context of the faux pandemic, where Fauci has blathered many assertions the pertinent science either does not support or actually contradicts.

    1. I found spare time enough to proofread my comment. I corrected typing errors. Below is the corrected text.
      ========
      Ronald Bailey’s article rests on a false premise. But that trouble ought not surprise actual scientists conversant with the pertinent fields — genetics, genetic engineering, microbiology, virology, infectious diseases…… And surely that trouble evades Mr. Bailey’s apprehension, because he is NOT a scientist of ANY field.

      Mr. Bailey’s higher education occurred only in economics and “philosophy.” He earned an economics B.A. (University of Virginia, 1976). And he did not earn a doctorate, or masters degree in any field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Bailey (Ordinarily, I will not cite Wikipedia for aught other than apolitical, non-debatable matters like the number of subatomic particles a hydrogen atom bears. In this instance, I cite Wikipedia SOLELY for a single fact-assertion that cannot be controversial and surely does not pursue any political agenda.)

      We cannot know what “philosophy” meant in Mr. Bailey’s B.A. curriculum. But we do know that “philosophy” may involve zero or near-zero science, surely zero or near-zero science relevant to fields pertinent to his false-premised article. And, though economics training ought to include math and statistics education, one cannot do, or appreciate adequately, the science of and surrounding Rand Paul’s interrogation of Fauci merely because one can apply math methods to problems of economics.

      I, however, am a physician. I am quite familiar with the matters Paul and Fauci “debated.” I know that Rand Paul described “gain of function” correctly and that Fauci never showed Paul’s description incorrect, but was reduced to asserting, emotionally, that Paul did “not know what [he, Paul, was] talking about.”

      A.

      Mr. Bailey asserted this: “A 2014 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy memo defines gain-of-function studies as those that “aim to increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility.” Mr. Bailey’s assertion suffers two flaws:

      (1) Mr Bailey’s assertion presumes that Obama’s White House Office of Science would state anything trustworthy respecting the gain-of-function (bioweapon) research occurring in the U.S. in 2014 — or even that any White House Office of Science is actually an office of “SCIENCE,” rather than an engine of propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, fake news, concealment of government crime, violation of the constitution, government violation of domestic law or international law, or……….

      RE: gain-of-function bioweapon research occurring during the Obama-Presidency years,
      COMPARE, e.g.,
      www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=DKcSNrGf4dE
      AND
      www DOT phe DOT gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/gain-of-function.pdf

      (2) Mr. Bailey’s assertion mis-describes “gain of function” — mis-describes it with errors of omission and commission.

      IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PAUL-VERSUS-FAUCI “DEBATE” (NOT “in general”), “Gain of function” research is: Using ARTIFICIAL means — E.G., gene-splicing, genetic-code-editing, or altering, repositioning, adding, or subtracting protein(s) — to cause a pathogen to become more transmissible, more toxic, more mutative, or more infectious, WHERE “infectious” does NOT mean “transmissible” (or “contagious”), but means capable of producing pathological [or disease] symptom(s)/effect(s) in a human or in a specimen of another animal species.

      Why did I include the term “toxic”?

      (a) Some pathogens are “poisonous” — produce effects that parallel effect(s) of a “poison.” EXAMPLE: Corynebacterium diphtheriae [or Klebs–Löffler bacillus] can introduce into the human biosystem an exotoxin [a single, 60-kDa-molecular-weight protein formed of two peptide chains (fragment A & fragment B) bonded by a disulfide]. That exotoxin produces the more dramatic (sometimes or often fatal) symptoms of diphtheria.

      (b) The “distinction” poison-versus-pathogen lacks logical sense. Poisons and pathogens cause similar dysfunction, impairment, injury, or disintegration of organ(s) or system(s). A poison mushroom is poisonous because of a bonding-protein of its structure. Corynebacterium diphtheriae is infectious or poisonous because of a protein of its structure. SARS-CoV-2 is infectious — and produces pathological, toxic, or toxic-like effects (partly) because of a protein of its structure.

      B.

      Mr. Bailey states: “Robert Garry, a Tulane University virologist pointed out to Newsweek that the Wuhan experiments were done to study whether the bat coronaviruses could infect humans.”

      Robert Garry cannot know that the Wuhan lab did “experiments…done to study whether the bat coronaviruses could infect humans” — ONLY such experiments but not gain of function research. Outside China, no one (unless a WHO official) knows what the Wuhan lab may have done pertinent to the faux Covid pandemic.

      Mr. Bailey misstated and misapplied Stuart Neil’s statements — misstated and misapplied Neil’s statements flagrantly. Neil’s statements do NOT exclude the gain-of-function-research possibility Rand Paul discussed.

      In apparent summary of his tweet-stream, Neil said: “The EcoHealth grant was judged by the vetting committee to not involve GoF because the investigators were REPLACING a function in a virus that ALREADY HAD human tropism rather than giving a function to one that could not infect humans.”

      I shall assume FOR ARGUMENT that in the Wuhan lab (or the U.S.-based) research’s (or researches’), the subject virus(es) were already (naturally or artificially) capable of infecting humans. Still, the virus(es) could obtain gain-of-function per (human-engineered) artificial means that alters, repositions, adds, or subtracts protein(s), so as to increase the virus’s or viruses’ transmissibility, toxicity, mutability, or infectiousness. Such “gain of function” occurs per natural mutation. So, it can occur per human intervention.

      I do not assert that the Wuhan lab did, or did not do, gain-of-function research that explains the existence of SARS-CoV-2. Some evidence suggest that the virus manifested first in Spain: apparently Spanish virologists discovered the same virus in Spanish sewage nine months before it manifested in China, and (though I have not pursued further reports) the Spanish suggested they would investigate whether the virus was present in even earlier sewage. See, e.g., www DOT reuters DOT com/article/us-health-coronavirus-spain-science-idUSKBN23X2HQ

      Mr. Bailey asserted: “During their heated exchange, Paul backtracked a bit, ‘No one is saying that those viruses caused the pandemic. What we’re alleging is the gain of function research was going on in that lab and NIH funded it’.”

      Rand Paul did not “backtrack.” Rand Paul made clear that his point was only that the Wuhan lab was engaging in gain-of-function research, that Fauci was involved in funding that research, and that Fauci KNEW he was involved in funding gain of function research.

      Rand Paul read, aloud, to Fauci parts of text of sundry documents, including documents Fauci produced or that were produced by the NIH or Fauci’s department of the NIH. At least in sum combination, the texts described gain of function as I described it above. Fauci did not present anything that could rebut the sum description Rand Paul’s reading adduced. Rather, Fauci simply asserted that Rand Paul — a physician — did not know what he “was talking about.”

      Fascinating. Fauci pretends to be a virologist. Actually, he was not trained in virology. He completed an internal medicine residency and had no other post-graduate medical education. Fauci rose to his “high” position with political maneuverings, not with pertinent expertise.

      Just so, publically and in medical community communications, Fauci has uttered many “scientific” or “medical” ERRORS and has had to correct his errors many times — perhaps especially in the context of the faux pandemic, where Fauci has blathered many assertions the pertinent science either does not support or actually contradicts.

  49. So the UN-Constitutional U.S. NIH is sending Gov-Gun-Stolen U.S. Workers [OUR] *earnings* to the tune amount of $600,000 to a China research lab???

    Is that an acceptable form of U.S. Gov-Gun-Force? To steal citizens money and send it to a China Laboratory? Seems I missed that granted authority in the U.S. Constitution (The People’s Law).

  50. Chemjeff is right about one thing, politics is at play. If a lab in Georgia forgot to properly secure a vial or something and 20 black kids got food poisoning, the left would be screeching at the republican governor / voters and calling for investigations to see if any white researchers had connections to Trump.

    But since we’re talking about China, we just choose to be blind. At minimum, China made a conscious decision not to warn the rest of the world about covid when it ravaged their cities possibly as early as 2018. That led to the deaths of millions of people, many of them minorities. The combined forces of KKK and Isis could not kill that many non white people in 1.5 years.

    The leak literally occurred in a lab. No one seems to be disputing that at this point. They were (essentially) weaponizing the virus and or let the virus spread in for some reason. China not only refuses to cooperate with inquiries, but they’ve floated theories that WE spread Covid. Try to imagine the UK blocking investigations into a covid outbreak in a London lab and insisting that Mexico could have spread the disease without a shred of evidence.

    Our logical reaction should be to…. give them the benefit of the doubt? “oh well covid could be an entirely natural phenomenon?” Even though a virus of covid level transmission rate and potency had not been seen since the early 1900s? Dark Ages? Even with scientists arguing that the genetic makeup of covid strongly suggests human engineering?

    So a super virus just randomly appears out of the blue, mutating in nature in the most unusual way, and conquers the world like the mongols? It pwns bird flu, Sars, Mers. etc? And China had nothing to do with that, and we shouldn’t scrutinize over our government handing them money to conduct that’s plausible GOF research?

    Sure, I guess.

    1. Please don’t forget the basic research for virus weaponization happened (at least) two years earlier. Have a look at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/

      (Read the date, and look at the author list, and pore through the abstract. Thanks!)

    2. Please don’t forget the basic research for virus weaponization happened (at least) two years earlier. Have a look at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/

      (Read the date, and look at the author list, and pore through the abstract. Thank

    3. The bats it came from were from Yunnan 1500 miles away from Wuhan and have a range of 30 miles.

      None of the first cases were near Yunnan or on the way to Wuhan.

      To have a natural origin some of the first human cases would need to be in Yunnan. Contact tracing 101.

    4. “So a super virus just randomly appears out of the blue, mutating in nature in the most unusual way, and conquers the world like the mongols?”

      Infectious diseases have never happened that way before. Never.

      The mongols conquered territory and sometimes held it. They had purpose and thought. The disease only finds hosts, replicates and mutates.

      In the civil war twice as many soldiers died from disease, more than bullets.

      The defense against the replicating virus has purpose and thought. The virus does not.

  51. Fauci today said we have to do the research that we supposedly are not doing. So yes fauci is lying again

  52. Fauci is first and foremost, a bureaucrat. His primary job is to secure his own employment for life and to increase the budget of his office yearly.
    Outside of that, anything else is an extra.
    Unfortunately he is destroying his own reputation. No one else is responsible for his own undoing. He is simply trying to save his own career and retire with the promised fat pension and free health care.
    At a time when trust in the government is at an all time low and sinking faster than the Titanic, Fauci is doing nothing to hinder that loss of trust.
    What’s as bad is this current administration has become more fascist that the previous one ever thought of.

  53. Best case scenario for Fauci is using enough semantic hedging to be considered technically telling the truth but in a way that obscures the rest of the truth. That’s the most charitable interpretation he deserves. The less charitable interpretation is that he knows exactly what Rand Paul is asking of him and he’s choosing to conceal that information and crossing into the threshold of perjury to hide his connections to a Chinese bioresearch catastrophe that the American people (who have been killed and deprived of their civil liberties as a result) have an absolute right to know with a straight answer.

  54. Of course we paid the Chinese to do gain of function research. That made it so much harder for them to credibly deny the source of the “release” of sars cov 2. Of course it was really US Intelligence who released the virus during the 2019 World Military Games in Wuhan. The 2019 Wuhan games were announced in 2015 giving the spooks four years to concoct a strategy to refurberate our friends the Chinese. For those unfamiliar, the US finished 35th in the games. Our worst ever showing. I guess the CIA needs to hire better athletes next time.

Comments are closed.