Page 1 of 3
Fauci lies about funding gain of function research in Wuhan
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:32 pm
by ajax18
One can see how much this rattled Fauci when confronted by Rand Paul on the issue. Of course Fauci won't be the first member of the Democrat Deep state to get away with lying to the minority party in congress. It's also interesting how quick Facebook and Twitter were to censor and suppress any information that would support the claim that Covid originated in a Wuhan lab. After all, to believe that Covid began in China is racist and therefore should not be protected under the 1st amendment.
Top Scientist Claims Anthony Fauci ‘Untruthful’ About Chinese Lab Research
The U.S. government contributed funding to controversial gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, a report alleged Monday.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the chief medical advisor to Democrat President Joe Biden, has previously denied the National Institute of Health [NIH] has ever funded such research.
The Intercept reported 900 new pages of previously undisclosed information from the NIH, which The Intercept obtained through a a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, that the EcoHealth Alliance used federal grant money to fund dangerous bat coronavirus research in the Chinese labs. The Intercept reported:
The bat coronavirus grant provided the EcoHealth Alliance with a total of $3.1 million, including $599,000 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology used in part to identify and alter bat coronaviruses likely to infect humans. Even before the pandemic, many scientists were concerned about the potential dangers associated with such experiments.
The grant proposal acknowledges some of those dangers: “Fieldwork involves the highest risk of exposure to SARS or other CoVs, while working in caves with high bat density overhead and the potential for fecal dust to be inhaled.”
Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University, reviewed the material and told The Intercept the “viruses they constructed were tested for their ability to infect mice that were engineered to display human type receptors on their cell.”
Ebright concluded by accusing Fauci and NIH Director, Francis Collins, of being “untruthful” in their previous remarks on the matter.
“The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful,” he wrote.
As Breitbart News reported, Fauci has admitted some funds went to Wuhan but claimed they were never used for “gain of function” support.
As far back as May Fauci told the House Appropriations subcommittee the funds were given to the Chinese lab through the EcoHealth Alliance to underwrite “a modest collaboration with very respectable Chinese scientists who were world experts on coronavirus.”
https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2021/09/ ... -research/
Re: Fauci lies about funding gain of function research in Wuhan
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:33 pm
by Alf'Omega
Breitbart always huh? Do you ever hope to be taken seriously by anyone?
Re: Fauci lies about funding gain of function research in Wuhan
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:50 pm
by Res Ipsa
Alf'Omega wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:33 pm
Breitbart always huh? Do you ever hope to be taken seriously by anyone?
The source of the story is the Intercept, which I believe is left leaning.
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/06/new ... inese-lab/
As to whether Fauci lied, the Intercept article doesn’t mention gain of function studies. However, the Intercept article links to the grant proposals themselves, so we can fact check.
Re: Fauci lies about funding gain of function research in Wuhan
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:56 pm
by Alf'Omega
How can the intercept be the source of a slanderous claim about something it doesn't even mention? Breitbart's opinion piece rests on the only person not named Rand Paul who is willing to suggest Fauci in some way "lied." It ignores the dozen others who agree with Fauci on the issue of gain of function.
Re: Fauci lies about funding gain of function research in Wuhan
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:11 pm
by Res Ipsa
Alf'Omega wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:56 pm
How can the intercept be the source of a slanderous claim about something it doesn't even mention? Breitbart's opinion piece rests on the only person not named Rand Paul who is willing to suggest Fauci in some way "lied." It ignores the dozen others who agree with Fauci on the issue of gain of function.
The Intercept reported that it received a response to a FOIA request that included two previously unreported grants. Presumably, the dozens of people to whom you refer were not aware of those grants. The Intercept links to the grant proposals. If the proposals include gain of function studies, then The Intercept was the source that provided the evidence.
The Intercept quotes an expert who reviewed the two grants applications. The Breitbart article quotes that part of the Intercept article. It then adds the following two paragraphs:
Ebright concluded by accusing Fauci and NIH Director, Francis Collins, of being “untruthful” in their previous remarks on the matter.
“The documents make it clear that assertions by the NIH Director, Francis Collins, and the NIAID Director, Anthony Fauci, that the NIH did not support gain-of-function research or potential pandemic pathogen enhancement at WIV are untruthful,” he wrote.
The Intercept refers to an interview, but the added paragraphs refer to a report. If the expert has written a report that accuses Fauci of lying, it should be fairly easy to track down.
ETA: Ebright did make the statements quoted in the Breitbart article on Twitter:
https://Twitter.com/r_h_ebright/status/ ... 44579?s=21
Ebright has been critical of Fauci on this issue, accusing him of playing games with the definition of “gain of function.” So it’s not just Rand Paul accusing Fauci of lying.
The Breitbart article was not an “opinion piece,” and calling it that is misleading. It is a news article that accurately reports on both the contents of the Intercept piece and on Ebright’s statements in his Twitter feed.
Re: Fauci lies about funding gain of function research in Wuhan
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:17 pm
by canpakes
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:11 pm
The Intercept refers to an interview, but the added paragraphs refer to a report. If the expert has written a report that accuses Fauci of lying, it should be fairly easy to track down.
Ebright makes that statement in this Nitter thread:
https://nitter.net/R_H_Ebright/status/1 ... 5785662464
Re: Fauci lies about funding gain of function research in Wuhan
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:22 pm
by Res Ipsa
canpakes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:17 pm
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:11 pm
The Intercept refers to an interview, but the added paragraphs refer to a report. If the expert has written a report that accuses Fauci of lying, it should be fairly easy to track down.
Ebright makes that statement in this Nitter thread:
https://nitter.net/R_H_Ebright/status/1 ... 5785662464
And on Twitter.
Re: Fauci lies about funding gain of function research in Wuhan
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:09 pm
by Alf'Omega
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 4:11 pm
The Intercept reported that it received a response to a FOIA request that included two previously unreported grants. Presumably, the dozens of people to whom you refer were not aware of those grants. The Intercept links to the grant proposals. If the proposals include gain of function studies, then The Intercept was the source that provided the evidence.
So if I publish an article entitled, "George Bush Molested his Children" and then reference something that may or may not support that assertion, is that kosher?
I thought it should have been obvious I was referring to Brietbart's poor track record of properly representing their sources. If the Intercept doesn't support Brietbart's ridiculous claims about lying which they have repeated many times since Paul's testimony, then it isn't fair really to say they're basing their article on something the Intercept provided. The problem with Brietbart is their mostly false claims that show up on a daily basis. In this case, "Fauci Lies" and they're citing the same guy we've all known about since he first voiced his opinion months ago. This isn't news.
The Intercept quotes an expert who reviewed the two grants applications. The Breitbart article quotes that part of the Intercept article. It then adds the following two paragraphs:
Ebright has been critical of Fauci on this issue, accusing him of playing games with the definition of “gain of function.” So it’s not just Rand Paul accusing Fauci of lying.
Which is why I said it relies on the ONE guy not named Rand Paul. Maybe you read my remarks too quickly and thought I was saying it relied strictly on Rand Paul.
Virtually everything Brietbart publishes is opinion, and in this case it is the opinion of the one guy who is willing to say what they want said, which is the only reason they're reporting on it as if it is news. It isn't news. We've known about Ebright's opinon for months now.
Here are some others.
George Mason University’s Gregory Koblentz, an expert in biodefense and dual use research, pointed out that WIV1 wasn’t an animal virus enhanced to infect humans through gain-of-function research, because it was already shown to pose a danger to humans.
“Sen. Paul is wrong when he says that the coronaviruses that were the subject of this research only infect animals and not humans and that this research was ‘gain-of-function’ because it enabled an animal virus to infect humans,” Koblentz said. "The WIV1 strain was already known to be able to infect humans."
Stephen Goldstein, a researcher of dangerous pathogens at a high-security lab in Utah and skeptic of the so-called “lab leak” theory, noted the paper showed some of the edited viruses were less infectious than the original WIV1.
Georgetown University virologist Angela Rasmussen, another critic of the lab leak theory, acknowledged that the viruses were infectious to human-like cells, but said studying a cell line in a lab, as the Wuhan researchers did, isn’t a good predictor of the virus’ ability to infect real people.
“The definition [of gain-of-function research] refers to increased transmissibility and pathogenicity in humans, and you can't determine either of those things in a cell line,” she said in an email. “That can test infectivity in an artificial system but is not remotely analogous to showing the virus is ‘transmissible,’ because there’s a lot more to transmission in the real world than just receptor binding and entry.”
Rasmussen said attempts by Paul to link WIV1 to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 are a “politically motivated smear,” echoing Fauci’s argument that it’s “molecularly impossible” they are related. Fauci was “right to call Sen. Paul a liar,” she said.
Re: Fauci lies about funding gain of function research in Wuhan
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:31 pm
by ajax18
The Breitbart article was not an “opinion piece,” and calling it that is misleading. It is a news article that accurately reports on both the contents of the Intercept piece and on Ebright’s statements in his Twitter feed.
You've got an incredible legal mind.
Re: Fauci lies about funding gain of function research in Wuhan
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2021 5:36 pm
by Res Ipsa
First, there is a difference between opinion pieces and news articles. You can play Humpty Dumpty and redefine the terms because you have a low opinion of Breitbart, but that doesn't actually transform a news article into an opinion piece.
Second, what you're really complaining about is editorial bias. The Intercept interviewed Ebright about the two newly revealed grants, indicating they consider him an expert on the subject. They included quotes from him, but did not mention his criticisms of the NIH and Fauci, including his opinion that the new material confirms his views. That's the Intercept's editorial bias. Both articles are factually correct, but they choose which part of the story to emphasize.
Third, what is the source of your quote at the end of your posts? Were they made by people who had seen the new material published by the Intercept? Were they aware that one of the grants was for research conducted, not at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but at a different facility?
Finally, your reaction to Ajax's opening post was knee-jerk dismissal based on the source. It's clear that you didn't even take the most elementary of fact checking steps. If you had, you would have recognized that the source of the story was a left leaning publication that quoted from the source that you say we should all ignore. And you wouldn't be trying to rebut newly revealed material with comments made before the Intercept made it available.
It may be that Ebright is wrong about gain of function in the new materials. That's beyond my pay grade, and yours, I suspect. I assume other experts will review them and tell us what they think. But it's not reasonable at all to dismiss the issue out of hand simply because it was reported in Breitbart.