Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fauci definitely will go down as one of the most skillful bureaucrats in history as well as the most incompetent and failed "scientists."

Had we actually listened to people like Scott Atlas and his coterie, who were smart enough to earn private sector jobs, we would we have myriad less self-inflicted damage.

---

We dodged a bullet there. Atlas isn't an expert in the field, and it shows.

---

Don't you have a fake mask study to proclaim? What shows? Your stupidity?

---

Sorry. I could recommend several good studies, but I don't think you'd be interested.

---

If I wanted to look at an Instagram bikini model it would be for the bikini body not for her as an "expert" and her tscience studies ... I'm too smitten with your daily TDS hysteria over overdue library books and flagpole coups.

---

I can see that. I'm kind of surprised you keep repeating that library joke every day considering how badly it's aged. You'd think a person might stop digging once we heard Trump stole some of the most sensitive secrets we had, but no, not you. No way, no how.

---

For which DOJ branch do you work?

You have to post one of your cartoon mask "studies" just for old times sake? Please ...

BTW - can you name anything rona-related Scott Atlas got wrong?

---

Atlas got the same stuff wrong that you did, i.e. pretty much everything. Haven't we covered this?

Here's a review of about 25 mask studies for old times' sake. Hope it makes as much of an impression as the one lonely paper that kind of, sort of supported your position (but not really).

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fauci definitely will go down as one of the most skillful bureaucrats in history as well as the most incompetent and failed "scientists."

Had we actually listened to people like Scott Atlas and his coterie, who were smart enough to earn private sector jobs, we would we have myriad less self-inflicted damage.

---

We dodged a bullet there. Atlas isn't an expert in the field, and it shows.

---

Don't you have a fake mask study to proclaim? What shows? Your stupidity?

---

Sorry. I could recommend several good studies, but I don't think you'd be interested.

---

If I wanted to look at an Instagram bikini model it would be for the bikini body not for her as an "expert" and her tscience studies ... I'm too smitten with your daily TDS hysteria over overdue library books and flagpole coups.

---

I can see that. I'm kind of surprised you keep repeating that library joke every day considering how badly it's aged. You'd think a person might stop digging once we heard Trump stole some of the most sensitive secrets we had, but no, not you. No way, no how.

---

For which DOJ branch do you work?

You have to post one of your cartoon mask "studies" just for old times sake? Please ...

BTW - can you name anything rona-related Scott Atlas got wrong?

---

Atlas got the same stuff wrong that you did, i.e. pretty much everything. Haven't we covered this?

Here's a review of about 25 mask studies for old times' sake. Hope it makes as much of an impression as the one lonely paper that kind of, sort of supported your position (but not really).

---

I think you had a fever dream about masks and Atlas being wrong.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

---

That is not the relevant definition, and it never was. The NIH has been quite consistent on that.

The Fauci Cult is really weird ... I mean anyone with a brain and a triple-digit IQ can realize he completely screwed up the responses to AIDS and SARS-CoV-2.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

---

That is not the relevant definition, and it never was. The NIH has been quite consistent on that.

---

GOF has been defined by the NIH a number of different ways (depending on its convenience), but the consistent them has been "enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals," which has been how the scientific community generally defines it. And even the NIH reps admitted that GOF research occurred at the Wuhan lab.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

---

That is not the relevant definition, and it never was. The NIH has been quite consistent on that.

---

GOF has been defined by the NIH a number of different ways (depending on its convenience), but the consistent them has been "enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals," which has been how the scientific community generally defines it. And even the NIH reps admitted that GOF research occurred at the Wuhan lab.

---

As stated on both versions of the NIH web page, the funding pause only applied to ePPP research. That means pathogens that are "likely highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans."

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

---

That is not the relevant definition, and it never was. The NIH has been quite consistent on that.

---

GOF has been defined by the NIH a number of different ways (depending on its convenience), but the consistent them has been "enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals," which has been how the scientific community generally defines it. And even the NIH reps admitted that GOF research occurred at the Wuhan lab.

---

As stated on both versions of the NIH web page, the funding pause only applied to ePPP research. That means pathogens that are "likely highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans."

---

Agreed. That doesn't mean this wasn't GOF research under the NIH definition. Many in the scientific community agree that it was GOF.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

---

That is not the relevant definition, and it never was. The NIH has been quite consistent on that.

---

GOF has been defined by the NIH a number of different ways (depending on its convenience), but the consistent them has been "enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals," which has been how the scientific community generally defines it. And even the NIH reps admitted that GOF research occurred at the Wuhan lab.

---

As stated on both versions of the NIH web page, the funding pause only applied to ePPP research. That means pathogens that are "likely highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans."

---

Agreed. That doesn't mean this wasn't GOF research under the NIH definition. Many in the scientific community agree that it was GOF.

---

It's the usual distraction by details. At the end of the day it is clear Fauci was directly or indirectly funding the likely creation of SARS-CoV-2.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

---

That is not the relevant definition, and it never was. The NIH has been quite consistent on that.

---

GOF has been defined by the NIH a number of different ways (depending on its convenience), but the consistent them has been "enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals," which has been how the scientific community generally defines it. And even the NIH reps admitted that GOF research occurred at the Wuhan lab.

---

As stated on both versions of the NIH web page, the funding pause only applied to ePPP research. That means pathogens that are "likely highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans."

---

Agreed. That doesn't mean this wasn't GOF research under the NIH definition. Many in the scientific community agree that it was GOF.

---

It's the usual distraction by details. At the end of the day it is clear Fauci was directly or indirectly funding the likely creation of SARS-CoV-2.

---

It doesn't necessarily prove that we funded creation of SARS-CoV-2, but it does suggest we were funding GOF research at the Wuhan lab, however, which is a huge concern. In fact, regardless of whether you call it GOF, the research in question should have been a huge concern, especially since SARS-CoV-2 does have some indicators it was man-made. This lab's lax protocols were well-known for many years.

Mothra said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

---

That is not the relevant definition, and it never was. The NIH has been quite consistent on that.

---

GOF has been defined by the NIH a number of different ways (depending on its convenience), but the consistent them has been "enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals," which has been how the scientific community generally defines it. And even the NIH reps admitted that GOF research occurred at the Wuhan lab.

---

As stated on both versions of the NIH web page, the funding pause only applied to ePPP research. That means pathogens that are "likely highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans."

---

Agreed. That doesn't mean this wasn't GOF research under the NIH definition. Many in the scientific community agree that it was GOF.

---

It's the usual distraction by details. At the end of the day it is clear Fauci was directly or indirectly funding the likely creation of SARS-CoV-2.

---

It doesn't necessarily prove that we funded creation of SARS-CoV-2, but it does suggest we were funding GOF research at the Wuhan lab, however, which is a huge concern. In fact, regardless of whether you call it GOF, the research in question should have been a huge concern, especially since SARS-CoV-2 does have some indicators it was man-made. This lab's lax protocols were well-known for many years.

---

Technically true, but money is fungible. It seems very likely SARS-CoV-2 is not naturally occurring, and we gave a lot of money to the lab that likely created it. Fauci and his cronies drove that.

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

If you want to understand Dr. Fauci's finances, this is a good article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2022/01/15/disclosures-released-dr-fauci-household-profits-exceeded-17-million-in-2020--included-income-royalties-travel-perks-and-investment-gains/?sh=1b31626d7d5f

No, he has not cashed in from Big Pharma while in public service. He has spent 55 years working very hard to protect the public health. He has a unique skillset. While disagreeing withthe advice he gave to policymakers is fair game. I am sure he made plenty of mistakes, given that he is a human being. But the financial angle is just wring to the point of being defamatory.

---

Fauci is the perfect example of why this nation is being flushed down the toilet.....lifelong non-elected bureaucrats that set up permanent residence in cushy connected jobs with great pay and little to no accountability. Then these bureaucrats issue edicts that is thenare treated like a law without a single one of our elected representatives casting a vote either for or against. Although the supreme court did rule against the EPA, so maybe that could be the start of wrangling in these non voted on or passed "laws"(regulations).

But let's not kid ourselves here, Fauci is turning tail and running before the heat ramps up with Republicans taking control of the House of Representatives in January.

Oh and it's laughable that you try to say the financial angle is just wring to the point of being defamoatory, considering you tried to push the lie that the Trump tax cuts caused a fall in federal revenue.

---

Not worth the energy.

---

Translation: "Time for me to cut and run"

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Fauci definitely will go down as one of the most skillful bureaucrats in history as well as the most incompetent and failed "scientists."

Had we actually listened to people like Scott Atlas and his coterie, who were smart enough to earn private sector jobs, we would we have myriad less self-inflicted damage.

---

We dodged a bullet there. Atlas isn't an expert in the field, and it shows.

---

Don't know about that, we literally couldn't have done much worse.

Especially in 2021 since there was a vaccination and we had better options for
the treatment of patients.

DeSantis on Fauci: "I'm just sick of seeing him. I know he says he's gonna retire. Someone needs to grab that little elf and chuck him across the Potomac”

pic.twitter.com/GRMDwzYbdX

— Henry Rodgers (@henryrodgersdc) August 24, 2022

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

---

That is not the relevant definition, and it never was. The NIH has been quite consistent on that.

---

GOF has been defined by the NIH a number of different ways (depending on its convenience), but the consistent them has been "enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals," which has been how the scientific community generally defines it. And even the NIH reps admitted that GOF research occurred at the Wuhan lab.

---

As stated on both versions of the NIH web page, the funding pause only applied to ePPP research. That means pathogens that are "likely highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans."

---

Agreed. That doesn't mean this wasn't GOF research under the NIH definition. Many in the scientific community agree that it was GOF.

---

The funding moratorium was a "pause on selected gain-of-function" research (emphasis mine). That's the context in which Fauci was speaking when he said they had reviewed the studies and determined that they were not "gain of function." Fauci and the NIH have been consistent on this. If Sen. Paul wanted to clarify the issue for the public, he might simply have pointed out that the term is sometimes used more broadly. Fauci tried to explain just that during his testimony. Unfortunately the senator was more interested in niggling over semantics and twisting Fauci's statements to accuse him of lying.

Mothra said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

---

That is not the relevant definition, and it never was. The NIH has been quite consistent on that.

---

GOF has been defined by the NIH a number of different ways (depending on its convenience), but the consistent them has been "enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals," which has been how the scientific community generally defines it. And even the NIH reps admitted that GOF research occurred at the Wuhan lab.

---

As stated on both versions of the NIH web page, the funding pause only applied to ePPP research. That means pathogens that are "likely highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans."

---

Agreed. That doesn't mean this wasn't GOF research under the NIH definition. Many in the scientific community agree that it was GOF.

---

It's the usual distraction by details. At the end of the day it is clear Fauci was directly or indirectly funding the likely creation of SARS-CoV-2.

---

It doesn't necessarily prove that we funded creation of SARS-CoV-2, but it does suggest we were funding GOF research at the Wuhan lab, however, which is a huge concern. In fact, regardless of whether you call it GOF, the research in question should have been a huge concern, especially since SARS-CoV-2 does have some indicators it was man-made. This lab's lax protocols were well-known for many years.

---

Lax protocols are a concern. GOF research per se is not a bad thing, and even if some people think it is, they're not the ones who set the relevant legal and ethical standards here.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/

t's another Fauci flub.

The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China's Wuhan lab despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.

In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab for not being transparent about the work it was doing.

NIH's principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, wrote in the letter that EcoHealth's "limited experiment" tested whether "spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model."

---

DEBUNKED!

They are blaming the vaccine on Trump now. That’s an indicator of how The Science (TM) going in the real world. pic.twitter.com/cLCd9cXP3A

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) August 24, 2022

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/

t's another Fauci flub.

The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China's Wuhan lab despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.

In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab for not being transparent about the work it was doing.

NIH's principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, wrote in the letter that EcoHealth's "limited experiment" tested whether "spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model."

---

DEBUNKED!

---

Fake news! Sam said so.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/

t's another Fauci flub.

The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China's Wuhan lab despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.

In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab for not being transparent about the work it was doing.

NIH's principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, wrote in the letter that EcoHealth's "limited experiment" tested whether "spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model."

---

DEBUNKED!

---

Already addressed on page one. Try to keep up.

But thanks for confirming that EcoHealth was late reporting its results.

Married A Horn said:

---

Investigate his bank account. What is his salary? 300k? (I have no idea, just using as an example). I bet his net worth is close to or above $100M.

(Not a republican vs democrat thing - they all go into politics with an ok salary and little money and come out with millions upon millions).

---

Yet the national media has never made a concerted effort to reveal how this enrichment occurs .

In my opinion that is almost the bigger mystery.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/

t's another Fauci flub.

The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China's Wuhan lab despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.

In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab for not being transparent about the work it was doing.

NIH's principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, wrote in the letter that EcoHealth's "limited experiment" tested whether "spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model."

---

DEBUNKED!

---

Already addressed on page one. Try to keep up.

But thanks for confirming that EcoHealth was late reporting its results.

---

The narrative is shifting towards covid vaccines being inefficient and now the national media is stirring the pot and blaming Trump for fast tracking them.

When the left turns against them, what are you gonna do?

I hope little elf stays healthy early next year when Rand Paul hauls him back in Congress for more questions and then send him to jail.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/

t's another Fauci flub.

The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China's Wuhan lab despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.

In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab for not being transparent about the work it was doing.

NIH's principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, wrote in the letter that EcoHealth's "limited experiment" tested whether "spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model."

---

DEBUNKED!

---

Already addressed on page one. Try to keep up.

But thanks for confirming that EcoHealth was late reporting its results.

---

The narrative is shifting towards covid vaccines being inefficient and now the national media is stirring the pot and blaming Trump for fast tracking them.

When the left turns against them, what are you gonna do?

---

I will be shocked -- shocked! -- to find that the left peddles political BS too.

So start relentlessly attacking them as well and gain a shred of respect for yourself.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

---

That is not the relevant definition, and it never was. The NIH has been quite consistent on that.

---

GOF has been defined by the NIH a number of different ways (depending on its convenience), but the consistent them has been "enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals," which has been how the scientific community generally defines it. And even the NIH reps admitted that GOF research occurred at the Wuhan lab.

---

As stated on both versions of the NIH web page, the funding pause only applied to ePPP research. That means pathogens that are "likely highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans."

---

Agreed. That doesn't mean this wasn't GOF research under the NIH definition. Many in the scientific community agree that it was GOF.

---

It's the usual distraction by details. At the end of the day it is clear Fauci was directly or indirectly funding the likely creation of SARS-CoV-2.

---

It doesn't necessarily prove that we funded creation of SARS-CoV-2, but it does suggest we were funding GOF research at the Wuhan lab, however, which is a huge concern. In fact, regardless of whether you call it GOF, the research in question should have been a huge concern, especially since SARS-CoV-2 does have some indicators it was man-made. This lab's lax protocols were well-known for many years.

---

Lax protocols are a concern. GOF research per se is not a bad thing, and even if some people think it is, they're not the ones who set the relevant legal and ethical standards here.

---

When GOF research involves making diseases that infect humans more virulent, it is a bad thing.

And people should go to prison or worse for it.

And sadly, none will. Therefore it will keep happening, over and over.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

---

That is not the relevant definition, and it never was. The NIH has been quite consistent on that.

---

GOF has been defined by the NIH a number of different ways (depending on its convenience), but the consistent them has been "enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals," which has been how the scientific community generally defines it. And even the NIH reps admitted that GOF research occurred at the Wuhan lab.

---

As stated on both versions of the NIH web page, the funding pause only applied to ePPP research. That means pathogens that are "likely highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans."

---

Agreed. That doesn't mean this wasn't GOF research under the NIH definition. Many in the scientific community agree that it was GOF.

---

The funding moratorium was a "pause on selected gain-of-function" research (emphasis mine). That's the context in which Fauci was speaking when he said they had reviewed the studies and determined that they were not "gain of function." Fauci and the NIH have been consistent on this. If Sen. Paul wanted to clarify the issue for the public, he might simply have pointed out that the term is sometimes used more broadly. Fauci tried to explain just that during his testimony. Unfortunately the senator was more interested in niggling over semantics and twisting Fauci's statements to accuse him of lying.

---

It appears to me that both sides are playing semantics word games. Just because the NIH definition is much narrower and has been narrowed further doesn't mean it's not GOF research, as that term is generally defined in the scientific community.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/

t's another Fauci flub.

The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China's Wuhan lab despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.

In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab for not being transparent about the work it was doing.

NIH's principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, wrote in the letter that EcoHealth's "limited experiment" tested whether "spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model."

---

DEBUNKED!

---

Already addressed on page one. Try to keep up.

But thanks for confirming that EcoHealth was late reporting its results.

---

The narrative is shifting towards covid vaccines being inefficient and now the national media is stirring the pot and blaming Trump for fast tracking them.

When the left turns against them, what are you gonna do?

---

I will be shocked -- shocked! -- to find that the left peddles political BS too.

---

Lol the left controls the science/medical messaging. All your sources are going to fall in line with whatever narrative they push.

Doc Holliday said:

---

They are blaming the vaccine on Trump now. That’s an indicator of how The Science (TM) going in the real world. pic.twitter.com/cLCd9cXP3A

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) August 24, 2022

---

So the shift is from Trump wasn't doing anything, to Trump was forcing them to come up with a vaccination to quickly.

Quote:

---

Biden and his top aides have repeatedly accused the Trump administration of having "no plan."

"We're moving in the right direction, though, despite the mess we inherited from the previous administration, which left us with no real plan to vaccinate all Americans," Biden said in a Feb. 25 speech.

Likewise, Jeff Zients, coordinator of Biden's COVID-19 task force, told CBS News "60 Minutes" late last month that he gives credit to scientists and people who enrolled in the vaccine trials -- not the Trump administration.

---

Wish these morons would make up their mind.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

LOL... what a d-bag. I see he's stepping down before Republicans take over in January. For him, it's all about self preservation. I'm sure he's hoping that since he'll be gone, they won't investigate him.

---

I'm sure he's not worried about that. Everyone knows Republicans don't believe in politically motivated witch hunts.

---

I suspect more concerning to Republicans and the focus of any investigation is not his politics, but the funding of gain of function research in a Chinese lab in Wuhan that just so happened to be a few miles from the alleged source of the virus outbreak, and the subsequent attempts to cover that up.

Seems to me regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, that is something we would want to get to the bottom of since, you know, COVID has killed a few million people, globally.

---

I do want to get to the bottom of it. I just don't think all the politicizing and grandstanding by the likes of Sen. Paul is helpful. To my knowledge, no expert in the field actually thinks Fauci lied. At worst he may have been unaware of some of the research being done, but he admitted all along that was a possibility. And as your article says, we know the research in question didn't produce the SARS-2 virus.

---

From the article I posted...

"The Intercept consulted 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields and hold a range of views on both the ethics of gain-of-function research and the Covid-19 origins search. Seven said that the work appears to meet NIH's criteria for gain-of-function research." Only one said it was clearly not gain of function research.

If he didn't know, it's gross incompetence if not outright lies.

---

He wasn't necessarily expected to know. The program relied to a great extent on the grantees' representations.

---

I think you're being awfully charitable. One would think that he would have known the answers to this question as of the date Congress asked about it, or at the very least would have said he didn't know and needed more information.

---

He did know by the time he was asked about it. What happened was that EcoHealth was late to meet its reporting requirements. When the lab results became known, NIH evaluated them and determined that the research didn't fit the definition. Most experts I've seen have agreed. The Intercept cites some who don't, but that's a difference of opinion. It doesn't mean anyone lied or changed the definition.

---

Of course the NIH determined it didn't constitute GOF, despite ending EcoHealth Alliance's grant in April of 2020. That wouldn't be politically convenient or consistent with their public statements.

EcoHealth Alliance claims it reported all of this to NIH in 2018, including that their research enhanced the virulence of WIV1 in mice - which is the textbook GOF definition. Again, Fauci knew all of this prior to testifying before Congress.

---

That is not the relevant definition, and it never was. The NIH has been quite consistent on that.

---

GOF has been defined by the NIH a number of different ways (depending on its convenience), but the consistent them has been "enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammals," which has been how the scientific community generally defines it. And even the NIH reps admitted that GOF research occurred at the Wuhan lab.

---

As stated on both versions of the NIH web page, the funding pause only applied to ePPP research. That means pathogens that are "likely highly transmissible and capable of wide, uncontrollable spread in human populations and highly virulent, making them likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans."

---

Agreed. That doesn't mean this wasn't GOF research under the NIH definition. Many in the scientific community agree that it was GOF.

---

The funding moratorium was a "pause on selected gain-of-function" research (emphasis mine). That's the context in which Fauci was speaking when he said they had reviewed the studies and determined that they were not "gain of function." Fauci and the NIH have been consistent on this. If Sen. Paul wanted to clarify the issue for the public, he might simply have pointed out that the term is sometimes used more broadly. Fauci tried to explain just that during his testimony. Unfortunately the senator was more interested in niggling over semantics and twisting Fauci's statements to accuse him of lying.

---

It appears to me that both sides are playing semantics word games. Just because the NIH definition is much narrower and has been narrowed further doesn't mean it's not GOF research, as that term is generally defined in the scientific community.

---

It hasn't been narrowed further, but basically that's what Fauci was trying to explain over Paul's interruptions.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/

t's another Fauci flub.

The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China's Wuhan lab despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.

In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab for not being transparent about the work it was doing.

NIH's principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, wrote in the letter that EcoHealth's "limited experiment" tested whether "spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model."

---

DEBUNKED!

---

Already addressed on page one. Try to keep up.

But thanks for confirming that EcoHealth was late reporting its results.

---

The narrative is shifting towards covid vaccines being inefficient and now the national media is stirring the pot and blaming Trump for fast tracking them.

When the left turns against them, what are you gonna do?

---

I will be shocked -- shocked! -- to find that the left peddles political BS too.

---

Lol the left controls the science/medical messaging. All your sources are going to fall in line with whatever narrative they push.

---

I doubt it. Scientists are human and subject to bias like anyone else, but there is a self-correcting process at work.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/

t's another Fauci flub.

The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China's Wuhan lab despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.

In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab for not being transparent about the work it was doing.

NIH's principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, wrote in the letter that EcoHealth's "limited experiment" tested whether "spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model."

---

DEBUNKED!

---

Already addressed on page one. Try to keep up.

But thanks for confirming that EcoHealth was late reporting its results.

---

The narrative is shifting towards covid vaccines being inefficient and now the national media is stirring the pot and blaming Trump for fast tracking them.

When the left turns against them, what are you gonna do?

---

I will be shocked -- shocked! -- to find that the left peddles political BS too.

---

Lol the left controls the science/medical messaging. All your sources are going to fall in line with whatever narrative they push.

---

I doubt it. Scientists are human and subject to bias like anyone else, but there is a self-correcting process at work.

---

Grift is at work and you should be more skeptical that what they're saying is backed by money.

If you think they're honest people, you're making a huge mistake.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

https://nypost.com/2021/10/21/nih-admits-us-funded-gain-of-function-in-wuhan-despite-faucis-repeated-denials/

t's another Fauci flub.

The National Institutes of Health has stunningly admitted to funding gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at China's Wuhan lab despite Dr. Anthony Fauci repeatedly insisting to Congress that no such thing happened.

In a letter to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) on Wednesday, a top NIH official blamed EcoHealth Alliance the New York City-based nonprofit that has funneled US funds to the Wuhan lab for not being transparent about the work it was doing.

NIH's principal deputy director, Lawrence A. Tabak, wrote in the letter that EcoHealth's "limited experiment" tested whether "spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model."

---

DEBUNKED!

---

Already addressed on page one. Try to keep up.

But thanks for confirming that EcoHealth was late reporting its results.

---

The narrative is shifting towards covid vaccines being inefficient and now the national media is stirring the pot and blaming Trump for fast tracking them.

When the left turns against them, what are you gonna do?

---

I will be shocked -- shocked! -- to find that the left peddles political BS too.

---

Lol the left controls the science/medical messaging. All your sources are going to fall in line with whatever narrative they push.

---

I doubt it. Scientists are human and subject to bias like anyone else, but there is a self-correcting process at work.

---

Grift is at work and you should be more skeptical that what they're saying is backed by money.

If you think they're honest people, you're making a huge mistake.

---

Do you know any scientists?