Fauci is a liar: letter proves that NIH did fund gain of function research

[Stoic]

Fauci is obviously a biased source. Ebright isn't.

It was the NIH that imposed a moratorium on gain-of-function research in the first place. It was the NIH that lifted that moratorium. It seems to me that it's appropriate for the NIH to define the term.

Ebright is not in the NIH.

[Stoic]

I suppose you're right in a way. It's not as though Fauci is going to say, "Wait a minute, so I did lie about funding illegal research!" as if he didn't already know.

In any case, a letter explaining why it wasn't illegal research, isn't likely to make him suddenly say that it was illegal research.

[seanD]

It was the NIH that imposed a moratorium on gain-of-function research in the first place. It was the NIH that lifted that moratorium. It seems to me that it's appropriate for the NIH to define the term.

Ebright is not in the NIH.

Not when one of the heads of that intuition is culpable if it was gain of function research. And to my understanding they stopped it because Obama and Trump ordered it stopped. It was a political move. Fauci has always been an adamant defender of that research.

[Stoic]

Not when one of the heads of that intuition is culpable if it was gain of function research. And to my understanding they stopped it because Obama and Trump ordered it stopped. It was a political move. Fauci has always been an adamant defender of that research.

I've seen no indication that Obama had anything to do with imposing the moratorium, nor that Trump had anything to do with lifting it.

[seanD]

I've seen no indication that Obama had anything to do with imposing the moratorium, nor that Trump had anything to do with lifting it.

I didn't say Trump lifted it. Obama banned it or stopped funding it, or something like that, then it was temporarily reinstated, and then Trump stopped it again.

[Stoic]

I didn't say Trump lifted it. Obama banned it or stopped funding it, or something like that, then it was temporarily reinstated, and then Trump stopped it again.

Funding of gain-of-function research was paused during the Obama administration, and continued during the Trump administration. It hasn't been stopped since then.

I don't know that Obama had anything to do with the pause.

[seanD]

Funding of gain-of-function research was paused during the Obama administration, and continued during the Trump administration. It hasn't been stopped since then.

I don't know that Obama had anything to do with the pause.

Point is, I'll go with the expert who calls it gain of function against the expert who's culpable if it is gain of function. Common sense. Though I realize the covid cult has no common sense.

[oxmixmudd]

Point is, I'll go with the expert who calls it gain of function against the expert who's culpable if it is gain of function. Common sense. Though I realize the covid cult has no common sense.

The problem is that Ebricht is not an objective, disinterested party, which means the necessary valuation used to derive your conclusion is itself compromised.

[seanD]

The problem is that Ebricht is not an objective, disinterested party, which means the necessary valuation used to derive your conclusion is itself compromised.

How is he not objective, compared to a guy who's directly linked to all this?

[Gondwanaland]

How is he not objective, compared to a guy who's directly linked to all this?

He's not objective because he does not confirm Oxi's Branch Covidian beliefs.

[NorrinRadd]

Two questions:

1) Wasn't there evidence a while back that the NIH quietly made small adjustments to their definition of "gain of function," and did so kind of "coincidentally" in time for Lard Farkwad to resume his studies "legally"?

2) If Lord Farkwad lied, doesn't that also mean that the "Christian" Francis Collins has also been speaking the language of the father of lies?

[rogue06]

Molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright on Wednesday posted a letter from the National Institute of Health (NIH) showing that an NIH grant did fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, contrary to what Dr. Anthony Fauci had testified to the Senate.

Fauci testified to Senators at a hearing in May that the NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

However, the NIH’s October 20 letter to House Oversight Committee Ranking Member James Comer (R-KY) showed that the NIH grant, which was awarded to EcoHealth Alliance and then sub-awarded to the Wuhan lab, funded a research project during 2018 and 2019 that tested “if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model.”

The letter added: “In this limited experiment, laboratory mice infected with the SHC014 WIV1 bat coronavirus became sicker than those infected with the WIV1 bat coronavirus.”

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, “gain-of-function” research is research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.

Ebright tweeted that in the letter, the NIH “corrects untruthful assertions by NIH Director Collins and NIAID Director Fauci that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-at-wuhan-lab/

tweet-rand-paul-nih-collins-told-you-so-fauci.jpg

[Mountain Man]

In any case, a letter explaining why it wasn't illegal research, isn't likely to make him suddenly say that it was illegal research.

I see. So if I robbed a bank, and then wrote a letter explaining why it wasn't illegal, that would make it okay?

[Sparko]

Some people (Ebright, Rand Paul, et al) consider research to be "gain of function" if there is any chance that a change in the virus could make it significantly more infectious in humans, or if it turns out after the fact that the virus is significantly more infectious in humans.

Others (Fauci, Collins, et al) consider it to be "gain of function" research only if it can be reasonably anticipated that the virus will be significantly more infectious in humans.

You could be correct regarding the technical term "gain of function", but what this letter does show is that Wuhan was experimenting with various bat corona viruses to see if they could get them to infect humans (humanized mice) which is a huge red flag, isn't it? It means that it is highly likely that they were the source of the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic. And that NIH was helping to fund them through the Ecohealth alliance.

[CivilDiscourse]

I see. So if I robbed a bank, and then wrote a letter explaining why it wasn't illegal, that would make it okay?

You have to remember the "any way to interpret" standard.

If you want to defend someone, the standard is "any way to interpret their innocence" is proof they are innocent. So, anything other than an blatant confession in open court in front of 1000 witnesses leaves room open for doubt, and if there's doubt, they are innocent. (See clinton's emails.)

If you want to attack someone, the standard is "any way to interpret their guilt" is proof they are guilty. The easiest and clearest example is all the tea leaf reading when it comes to claiming a republican said a racist dog whistle.

Or, for the cleanest example Look what happened when someone tweeted out Maxine Water's "Get out and let them know they are not welcome here" words changing Trump to Cuomo. Exact same words, Maxines was interpreted with maximum charity and declared to not be condoning violence, The other was immediately condemned as promoting violence.