Dr ANTHONY FAUCI's COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS to the 2022 GRADUATING CLASS of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Author: oromagi

Posts

Total: 81
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Thank you, President Eisgruber, for that kind introduction. Members of the faculty; distinguished guests; family members and friends of the graduates; and you, the 2022 graduating class of Princeton University. It is a pleasure and an honor to be your Class Day speaker, and it is exciting for me to share this fun and celebratory day with you.

I have had the privilege of delivering remarks at a number of graduation exercises over the years.  More often than not, I have referred to my own graduation from college many years ago and drawn certain analogies between myself and the students. to illustrate that in the common landmark of college graduation, we likely had shared feelings and common experiences. Clearly, in one respect that does not readily apply to your Class.  

The profound ways COVID-19 has disrupted your student years are unprecedented.  Viewing the situation from my vantage point at the National Institutes of Health and as a member of the White House COVID Response Team, I have a sincere and heartfelt message to each of you.  Years from now, as you recall your experience here at Princeton over the past 2- and one-half years, it will be clear that COVID left an indelible mark on you and your entire generation.  Having said that, I am in awe of you all since each of you deserves enormous credit and respect for your extraordinary adaptability, resilience, and dedication to learning, completing your studies, and graduating despite immense difficulties and uncertainties.

Now truth be told, when I think back on my own graduation from college, I cannot remember a word of what the commencement speaker said. And so, years from now I do not expect you to remember what I say. But in the next few minutes, I hope to kindle in you some thoughts.

First:
Expect the unexpected. This is an enduring issue that continues to confront me to this day.  Planning one’s path in life is something we all do to a greater or lesser degree.  You already have done that to some extent by having chosen Princeton for your undergraduate education.  However, in my own experience, some of the most impactful events and directions in my life have been completely unanticipated and unplanned. You are at a period in your lives of virtually unlimited potential and so please keep a completely open mind and do not shy away from dreaming impossible dreams and seizing unanticipated opportunities.

Let me describe an example of such a completely unanticipated challenge and opportunity that profoundly impacted the direction of my career and my entire life.

After graduating from medical school and following years of residency and fellowship training, I began a journey in 1972 as a young clinical investigator at the National Institutes of Health.  Over the next nine years, I progressed to what many considered a very successful, safe, and comfortable career in investigative medicine. My future seemed settled.  Then, in June 1981 — 41 years ago next month — my life took a turn.  I remember quite clearly sitting in my NIH office reading in a CDC report about a handful of cases of an unusual pneumonia among gay men in Los Angeles. A month later, 26 additional cases among gay men from Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York City, not only with this unusual pneumonia but also other rare infections and cancer, were described in a second CDC report.  We did not realize it at the time, but we were witnessing the evolution of one of the worse public health scourges in recent memory – the HIV/AIDS pandemic.  I became totally engrossed in and fascinated by this mysterious new disease that did not yet have a name or an etiologic agent.   I am still not sure what drove me to do this, but I decided right then and there to make an abrupt turn in the direction of my career, abandon my other research pursuits and investigate the pathogenesis of this mysterious disease. My mentors were horrified and insisted that I was making a career-ending mistake and that this disease would amount to nothing. However, the subsequent emergence of the AIDS pandemic, and my decision to pivot and devote my efforts to this unexpected public health challenge transformed my professional career, if not my entire life, and put me on the path that I am on to this very day.

Now, obviously, not every opportunity or challenge you encounter will influence your careers or your lives or be as dramatic as a mysterious infectious disease outbreak. However, please believe me that you will confront the same types of unpredictable events that I have experienced, regardless of what directions your careers or lives take. And so, expect the unexpected, and stay heads up for an unanticipated opportunity should it present itself. Of course, listen to advice of others who care about you, but at the end of the day, go with your own gut.   It can be rewarding, exciting and potentially career- and life-altering. 

Next -
The Failings in Our Society.    
Our country’s experience with COVID-19 has shone a spotlight on one of the great failings in our society: the lack of health equity. As a physician, I feel that I must highlight this for you today.  COVID-19 has exposed longstanding inequities that have undermined the physical, social, economic, and emotional health of racial and ethnic minorities. Many members of minority groups are at increased risk of COVID-19 simply because the jobs they have as essential workers do not allow them to isolate from social activity. More importantly, when people in minority groups are infected with the coronavirus, they have a much greater likelihood of developing a severe consequence due to elevated rates of underlying conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and chronic lung disease, among others, that lead to an increased risk of hospitalization and death.

Very few of these conditions are racially determined. Almost all relate to social determinants of health experienced since birth, including the limited availability of a healthful diet, substandard housing, the lack of access to health care, and tragically, the restrictions and pressures experienced to this day because of the undeniable racism that persists in our society.

Let us promise ourselves that our “corporate memory” of the tragic reality of the inequities experienced with COVID-19 does not fade after we return to our new normal. It will take a decades-long commitment for society to address these disparities. I strongly urge you to be part of that commitment. Together we must find the strength, wisdom, ingenuity, and empathy to address these entrenched elements of injustice, manifested in so many subtle and overt ways, and work with all our might to remedy the cultural disease of racism, just as we fight the viral disease of COVID-19.

Which brings me to my next point of discussion:

Public service and social responsibility.  I sincerely believe that regardless of our career paths, we cannot look the other way from pressing societal issues.  There are many communities in our own country and globally that are challenged by poverty, drug abuse, violence, inadequate education, discrimination, and despair.  Some of you may devote your future careers and lives to directly addressing these societal issues. Understandably, most of you will not.  In this regard, public service does not necessarily mean a profession or avocation devoted entirely to public service.   One can incorporate elements of public service into your lives regardless of your career choice.  This might require your exercising a quality which is my next point of discussion.

         Leadership.  You are graduating from an extraordinary institution. The very fact that you were chosen to be part of this outstanding Princeton class in my mind puts something of a burden of responsibility upon at least some of you to assume leadership roles in our society.  It does not necessarily have to be designated leadership. Leadership can take many forms, including the quiet and subtle leadership of example.      

         Which brings me to my next issue.

Our Divided Nation.  I have spent my entire professional career in Washington, D.C., as a scientist, a physician, and a public health official.    Although that career path is fundamentally devoid of politics in the classic sense, being in Washington has allowed me to experience first-hand the intensity of the divisiveness in our nation.   

What troubles me is that differences of opinion or ideology have in certain situations been reflected by egregious distortions of reality. Sadly, elements of our society have grown increasingly inured to a cacophony of falsehoods and lies that often stand largely unchallenged, ominously leading to an insidious acceptance of what I call the “normalization of untruths.” 

We see this happen daily, with falsehoods propagated through a range of information platforms by a spectrum of people, including, sad to say, certain elected officials in positions of power.  Yet, the outrage and dissent against this alarming trend has been muted and mild.

If you take away nothing else from what I say today, I appeal to you, please remember this: It is our collective responsibility not to shrug our shoulders and sink to a tacit acceptance of the normalization of untruths. Because if we do, lies become dominant and reality is distorted. And then truth means nothing, integrity means nothing, facts mean nothing.

This is how a society deteriorates into a way of life where veracity becomes subservient to propaganda rather than being upheld as our guiding principle.
Seek and listen to opinions that differ from your own. But apply your abilities to critically analyze and examine, which you have honed here at Princeton, to discern and challenge weak assertions built on untruths.  As future leaders in our society, we are counting on you for that.

         In closing, I have been speaking to you over the past few minutes about the serious issues that we are facing in our current world.   And so, putting this serious business aside for a moment, I want to close with a reminder about the joyousness of life and what a bright future you all have. Allow yourselves to cultivate this joy as much as you do your professional accomplishments.  Find your source of joy and happiness and fully embrace it. And think upon your future as that stated by the American Political Theorist John H. Schaar: “The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating.  The paths are not to be found, but made, and the activity of making them changes both the maker and the destination”   

Congratulations to you, to your families, and to your loved ones.  Good luck and God bless you.
Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
no one cares about what this liberal vaccine fraudster says. 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Fauci is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Medicine, the American Philosophical Society,  and the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, as well as other numerous professional societies including the American Society for Clinical Investigation, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the American Association of Immunologists. He serves on the editorial boards of many scientific journals, as an editor of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, and as an author, coauthor, or editor of more than 1,000 scientific publications, including several textbooks. On March 23, 2021, Fauci was admitted as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland. 


Awards and honors

  • 1979: Arthur S. Flemming Award
  • 1993: Honorary Doctor of Science, Bates College
  • 1995: Ernst Jung Prize (shared with Samuel A. Wells, Jr.)
  • 1995: Honorary Doctor of Science, Duke University
  • 1996: Honorary Doctor of Science, Colgate University
  • 1999: Honorary Doctor of Public Service, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
  • 2002: Albany Medical Center Prize
  • 2003: Golden Plate Award, American Academy of Achievement
  • 2005: National Medal of Science, President of the United States
  • 2005: American Association of Immunologists Lifetime Achievement Award
  • 2007: Mary Woodard Lasker Public Service Award, Lasker Foundation
  • 2007: George M. Kober Medal, Association of American Physicians
  • 2008: Presidential Medal of Freedom
  • 2013: UCSF Medal, University of California, San Francisco
  • 2013: Robert Koch Gold Medal, Robert Koch Foundation, Germany
  • 2013: Prince Mahidol Award, Prince Mahidol Award Foundation, Thailand
  • 2015: Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, Johns Hopkins University
  • 2015: Honorary Doctor of Public Service, The George Washington University
  • 2016: John Dirks Canada Gairdner Global Health Award
  • 2018: Honorary Doctor of Science, commencement speaker, American University
  • 2018: Honorary Doctor of Science, Boston University
  • 2019: Bertrand Russell Society Award
  • 2020: Federal Employee of the Year, Partnership for Public Service
  • 2020: Presidential Citation for Exemplary Leadership, National Academy of Medicine
  • 2020: Ripple of Hope Award, Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights
  • 2020: Time's Guardian of the Year, along with the frontline health workers, Assa Traoré, Porche Bennett-Bey, and racial justice organizers.
  • 2020: Harris Dean's Award, The University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy
  • 2020: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic
  • 2020: John Maddox Prize, Sense about Science
  • 2021: Public Welfare Medal of the National Academy of Sciences
  • 2021: Dan David Prize, Dan David Foundation, Israel
  • 2021: President's Medal, The George Washington University
  • 2021: Honorary Doctor of Science, McGill University
  • 2022: Honorary Doctor of Science, Sapienza University of Rome
  • 2022: Honorary Doctor of Science, commencement speaker, University of Michigan
  • 2022: Hutch Award winner, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

51 days later

Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
You can list all the awards you want, but that doesn't excuse the disastrous consequences of this man's actions.

Anthony is partly responsible for Covid. He helped secure funding for the gain of function research conducted in Wuhan. He is also on record lying about this ("does not fund gain-of-function research and if it is" -- massive contradiction): Exchange between Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci - YouTube

Keep all this in mind as Anthony talks about the "profound ways" Covid impacted these students.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,850
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
You can list all the awards you want, but that doesn't excuse the disastrous consequences of this man's actions.

Anthony is partly responsible for Covid. He helped secure funding for the gain of function research conducted in Wuhan. He is also on record lying about this ("does not fund gain-of-function research and if it is" -- massive contradiction): Exchange between Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci - YouTube

Keep all this in mind as Anthony talks about the "profound ways" Covid impacted these students
I believe one of them has a fake degree.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Avery
Anthony is partly responsible for Covid.
  • false
He helped secure funding for the gain of function research conducted in Wuhan.  He is also on record lying about this ("does not fund gain-of-function research and if it is" -- massive contradiction
  • Wikipedia summarizes Rand Paul's deception here fairly succinctly:
    • In a congressional hearing on May 11, 2021, about Anthony Fauci's role as the Chief Medical Advisor to the United States Office of the President, senator Rand Paul stated that "the U.S. has been collaborating with Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Virology Institute, sharing discoveries about how to create super viruses. This gain-of-function research has been funded by the NIH." Fauci responded "with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect...the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research [conducted at] the Wuhan Institute of Virology."  The Washington Post fact-checking team later rated Paul's statements as containing "significant omissions and/or exaggerations".   NIH funding to the EcoHealth Alliance and later sub-contracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology was not to support gain-of-function experiments, but instead to enable the collection of bat samples in the wild.   EcoHealth Alliance spokesperson Robert Kessler has also categorically denied the accusation.
    • EcoHealth Alliance was paying technicians from the  Wuhan lab $133,000/year  to go out and collect bat samples for their research in South Carolina. Nobody could call that  "gain of function" research and so Fauci was 100% truthful here and Rand Paul (as usual) a god-damned liar.
      • "Gain of function, in many ways, is basic biological research. It’s done all the time with flies, worms, mice and cells in petri dishes. Scientists create novel genotypes (such as arrangements of nucleic acids) and screen or select to find those with a given phenotype (such as trait or ability) to find new sequences with a particular function."  -Washington Post
      • All virology labs do work that Paul might term "gain of function, including research done by EcoHealth Alliance.
  • The inference deceptively drawn by Paul that there is some sort of connection to be drawn between the NIH grant to EcoHealth and COVID-19 is 100% bullshit and no responsible person would repeat that lie.
  • Scientific consensus then and now is that SARS2 most likely emerged from the same place as SARS1- the live animal market in Wuhan.  The conspiracy theory suggesting COVID-19 came out of the lab in Wuhan has no supporting evidence in virology but given the lab's proximity to the point of origin and the secrecy enforced by the Chinese govt, there will probably always remain a gap in certainty about COVID-19's origin that politicians like Paul will exploit.

Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@oromagi
Anthony is partly responsible for Covid.
  • false
Your extensive counter-argument is extremely convincing.

He helped secure funding for the gain of function research conducted in Wuhan.  He is also on record lying about this ("does not fund gain-of-function research and if it is" -- massive contradiction
  • Wikipedia summarizes Rand Paul's deception here fairly succinctly:
    • In a congressional hearing on May 11, 2021, about Anthony Fauci's role as the Chief Medical Advisor to the United States Office of the President, senator Rand Paul stated that "the U.S. has been collaborating with Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Virology Institute, sharing discoveries about how to create super viruses. This gain-of-function research has been funded by the NIH." Fauci responded "with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect...the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research [conducted at] the Wuhan Institute of Virology."  The Washington Post fact-checking team later rated Paul's statements as containing "significant omissions and/or exaggerations".   NIH funding to the EcoHealth Alliance and later sub-contracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology was not to support gain-of-function experiments, but instead to enable the collection of bat samples in the wild.   EcoHealth Alliance spokesperson Robert Kessler has also categorically denied the accusation.
    • EcoHealth Alliance was paying technicians from the  Wuhan lab $133,000/year  to go out and collect bat samples for their research in South Carolina. Nobody could call that  "gain of function" research and so Fauci was 100% truthful here and Rand Paul (as usual) a god-damned liar.
      • "Gain of function, in many ways, is basic biological research. It’s done all the time with flies, worms, mice and cells in petri dishes. Scientists create novel genotypes (such as arrangements of nucleic acids) and screen or select to find those with a given phenotype (such as trait or ability) to find new sequences with a particular function."  -Washington Post
      • All virology labs do work that Paul might term "gain of function, including research done by EcoHealth Alliance.
  • The inference deceptively drawn by Paul that there is some sort of connection to be drawn between the NIH grant to EcoHealth and COVID-19 is 100% bullshit and no responsible person would repeat that lie.
  • Scientific consensus then and now is that SARS2 most likely emerged from the same place as SARS1- the live animal market in Wuhan.  The conspiracy theory suggesting COVID-19 came out of the lab in Wuhan has no supporting evidence in virology but given the lab's proximity to the point of origin and the secrecy enforced by the Chinese govt, there will probably always remain a gap in certainty about COVID-19's origin that politicians like Paul will exploit.
Before we get into the details as to whether any of this is true, could you please explain to me why Anthony said about Dr Baric's lab: "we do not fund ... does not [do] gain-of-function research and if it is according to the guidelines..."

To me, there is a clear contradiction in that:

(1) Anthony has denied being involved in gain-of-function research while also denying that Dr Baric's lab was at all involved in gain-of-function research

(2) Anthony also says "if it is" doing the gain-of-function research, it's according to guidelines etc.

This seemingly contradictory speech from Fauci runs from 2 minutes 10 seconds on this video, for anyone who doesn't believe me: Exchange between Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci - YouTube 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
MIT Technology Review recently asked Baric to explain what constitutes a gain-of-function experiment, why such research exists, and whether it could have played any role in the pandemic. The interview has been edited and shortened for clarity.

Q: Now that Rand Paul has announced on the floor of the Senate that you’re creating superviruses and performing gain-of-function experiments, this seems like a good time to talk about your work.

Ralph Baric: Well, let me start off by saying that we’ve never created a supervirus. That’s a figment of his imagination and obviously being used for political advancement. Unfortunately, the way social media works today, this fabrication will be repeated many times.

How do you define gain-of-function research?

Human beings have practiced gain-of-function for the last 2,000 years, mostly in plants, where farmers would always save the largest seeds from the healthiest plants to replant the following year. The reason we can manage to have 7 billion people here on the planet is basically through direct or indirect genetic engineering through gain-of-function research. The simple definition of gain-of-function research is the introduction of a mutation than enhances a gene’s function or property—a process used commonly in genetic, biologic, and microbiologic research.
In virology, historically, attenuated vaccines were generated by gain-of-function studies, which took human virus pathogens and adapted them for improved growth in cell culture, which reduced virus virulence in the natural human host.
So gain-of-function has been used in virology and microbiology for decades as a part of the scientific method. But that classic definition and purpose changed in 2011 and 2012, when researchers in Wisconsin and the Netherlands were funded to do gain-of-function research on avian flu transmissibility.

Those were the experiments that took H5N1, which had a high mortality rate in humans but low transmissibility, and made it highly transmissible through respiratory avenues.

The NIH, the FDA, the CDC, and the WHO all held meetings to identify the critical topics in influenza research that were least understood. What information and insight would better prepare us for flu pandemics that emerge from animal reservoirs in the future? The number-one conclusion was that we needed to understand the genetics and biology of flu emergence and transmission.
In response, the NIH called for proposals. Two researchers responded and were funded, and they discovered genetic changes that regulated H5N1 transmissibility in ferrets.
After that, they were labeled as rogue scientists, and gain-of-function was defined in negative terms. But in fact, they were working within the confines of the global health community’s interests.
Then again, the other side argues that regardless of how safe your BSL-3 or BSL-4 research infrastructure is, human beings are not infallible. [Pathogen labs are assigned a biosafety level rating of 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest.] They make mistakes, even in high-containment facilities. Consequently, the risks may outweigh the benefits of the experiment. Both sides of the argument have justified concerns and points of view.

In addition to concerns over a lab escape, there were also concerns about whether the knowledge of how to do such experiments might fall into the wrong hands.

That’s certainly part of the issue. And there was a fair amount of debate about whether that information [about genetic changes associated with flu transmission] should be made public. There are two or three instances in the virology literature of papers that are a potential concern.
Some consider my 2015 paper in this light, although after consultation with the NIH and the journal, we purposely did not provide the genetic sequence of the chimera in the original publication. Thus, our exact method remained obscure.
However, the sequence was repeatedly requested after the covid-19 pandemic emerged, and so after discussion with the NIH and the journal, it was provided to the community. Those who analyzed these sequences stated that it was very different from SARS-CoV-2.

How did that chimeric work on coronaviruses begin?

Around 2012 or 2013, I heard Dr. Shi present at a meeting. [Shi’s team had recently discovered two new coronaviruses in a bat cave, which they named SHC014 and WIV1.] We talked after the meeting. I asked her whether she’d be willing to make the sequences to either the SHC014 or the WIV1 spike available after she published.
And she was gracious enough to send us those sequences almost immediately—in fact, before she’d published. That was her major contribution to the paper. And when a colleague gives you sequences beforehand, co-authorship on the paper is appropriate.
That was the basis of that collaboration. We never provided the chimeric virus sequence, clones, or viruses to researchers at the WIV; and Dr. Shi, or members of her research team, never worked in our laboratory at UNC. No one from my group has worked in WIV laboratories.

And you had developed a reverse-genetics technique that allowed you to synthesize those viruses from the genetic sequence alone?

Yes, but at the time, DNA synthesis costs were expensive—around a dollar per base [one letter of DNA]. So synthesizing a coronavirus genome could cost $30,000. And we only had the spike sequence. Synthesizing just the 4,000-nucleotide spike gene cost $4,000. So we introduced the authentic SHC014 spike into a replication-competent backbone: a mouse-adapted strain of SARS. The virus was viable, and we discovered that it could replicate in human cells.
So is that gain-of-function research? Well, the SARS coronavirus parental strain could replicate quite efficiently in primary human cells. The chimera could also program infection of human cells, but not better than the parental virus. So we didn’t gain any function—rather, we retained function. Moreover, the chimera was attenuated in mice as compared to the parental mouse-adapted virus, so this would be considered a loss of function.

One of the knocks against gain-of-function research—including this research—is that the work has little practical value. Would you agree?

Well, by 2016, using chimeras and reverse genetics, we had identified enough high-risk SARS-like coronaviruses to be able to test and identify drugs that have broad-based activity against coronaviruses. We identified remdesivir as the first broad-based antiviral drug that worked against all known coronaviruses, and published on it in 2017. It immediately was entered into human trials and became the first FDA-approved drug for treating covid-19 infections globally. A second drug, called EIDD-2801, or molnupiravir, was also shown to be effective against all known coronaviruses prior to the 2020 pandemic, and then shown to work against SARS-CoV-2 by March 2020.
Consequently, I disagree. I would ask critics if they had identified any broad-spectrum coronavirus drugs prior to the pandemic. Can they point to papers from their laboratories documenting a strategic approach to develop effective pan-coronavirus drugs that turned out to be effective against an unknown emerging pandemic virus?
Unfortunately, remdesivir could only be delivered by intravenous injection. We were moving toward an oral-based delivery formulation, but the covid-19 pandemic emerged. I really wish we’d had an oral-based drug early on. That’s the game-changer that would help people infected in the developing world, as well as citizens in the US.
Molnupiravir is an oral medication, and phase 3 trials demonstrate rapid control of viral infection. It’s been considered for emergency-use authorization in India.
Finally, the work also supported federal policy decisions that prioritized basic and applied research on coronaviruses.

What about vaccines?

Around 2018 to 2019, the Vaccine Research Center at NIH contacted us to begin testing a messenger-RNA-based vaccine against MERS-CoV [a coronavirus that sometimes spreads from camels to humans]. MERS-CoV has been an ongoing problem since 2012, with a 35% mortality rate, so it has real global-health-threat potential.
By early 2020, we had a tremendous amount of data showing that in the mouse model that we had developed, these mRNA spike vaccines were really efficacious in protecting against lethal MERS-CoV infection. If designed against the original 2003 SARS strain, it was also very effective. So I think it was a no-brainer for NIH to consider mRNA-based vaccines as a safe and robust platform against SARS-CoV-2 and to give them a high priority moving forward.
Most recently, we published a paper showing that multiplexed, chimeric spike mRNA vaccines protect against all known SARS-like virus infections in mice. Global efforts to develop pan-sarbecoronavirus vaccines [sarbecoronavirus is the subgenus to which SARS and SARS-CoV-2 belong] will require us to make viruses like those described in the 2015 paper.
So I would argue that anyone saying there was no justification to do the work in 2015 is simply not acknowledging the infrastructure that contributed to therapeutics and vaccines for covid-19 and future coronaviruses.

The work only has value if the benefits outweigh the risks. Are there safety standards that should be applied to minimize those risks?

Certainly. We do everything at BSL-3 plus. The minimum requirements at BSL-3 would be an N95 mask, eye protection, gloves, and a lab coat, but we actually wear impervious Tyvek suits, aprons, and booties and are double-gloved. Our personnel wear hoods with PAPRs [powered air-purifying respirators] that supply HEPA-filtered air to the worker. So not only are we doing all research in a biological safety cabinet, but we also perform the research in a negative-pressure containment facility, which has lots of redundant features and backups, and each worker is encased in their own private personal containment suit.
Another thing we do is to run emergency drills with local first responders. We also work with the local hospital. With many laboratory infections, there’s actually no known event that caused that infection to occur. And people get sick, right? You have to have medical surveillance plans in place to rapidly quarantine people at home, to make sure they have masks and communicate regularly with a doctor on campus.


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Is all that standard for other facilities in the US and internationally?

No, I don’t think so. Different places have different levels of BSL-3 containment operations, standard operating procedures, and protective gear. Some of it is dependent on how deep your pockets are and the pathogens studied in the facility. An N95 is a lot cheaper than a PAPR.
Internationally, the US has no say over what biological safety conditions are used in China or any other sovereign nation to conduct research on viruses, be they coronaviruses or Nipah, Hendra, or Ebola.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology was making chimeric coronaviruses, using techniques similar to yours, right?

Let me make it clear that we never sent any of our molecular clones or any chimeric viruses to China. They developed their own molecular clone, based on WIV1, which is a bat coronavirus. And into that backbone they shuffled in the spike genes of other bat coronaviruses, to learn how well the spike genes of these strains can promote infection in human cells.

Would you call that gain-of-function?

A committee at NIH makes determinations of gain-of-function research. The gain-of-function rules are focused on viruses of pandemic potential and experiments that intend to enhance the transmissibility or pathogenesis of SARS, MERS, and avian flu strains in humans. WIV1 is approximately 10% different from SARS. Some argue that “SARS coronavirus” by definition covers anything in the sarbecoronavirus genus. By this definition, the Chinese might be doing gain-of-function experiments, depending on how the chimera behaves. Others argue that SARS and WIV1 are different, and as such the experiments would be exempt. Certainly, the CDC considers SARS and WIV1 to be different viruses. Only the SARS coronavirus from 2003 is a select agent. Ultimately, a committee at the NIH is the final arbiter and makes the decision about what is or is not a gain-of-function experiment.

Definitions aside, we know they were doing the work in BSL-2 conditions, which is a much lower safety level than your BSL-3 plus.

Historically, the Chinese have done a lot of their bat coronavirus research under BSL-2 conditions. Obviously, the safety standards of BSL-2 are different than BSL-3, and lab-acquired infections occur much more frequently at BSL-2. There is also much less oversight at BSL-2.

This year, a joint commission of the World Health Organization and China said it was extremely unlikely that a lab accident had caused SARS-CoV-2. But you later signed a letter with other scientists calling for a thorough investigation of all possible causes. Why was that?

One of the reasons I signed the letter in Science was that the WHO report didn’t really discuss how work was done in the WIV laboratory, or what data the expert panel reviewed to come to the conclusion that it was “very unlikely” that a laboratory escape or infection was the cause of the pandemic.
There must be some recognition that a laboratory infection could have occurred under BSL-2 operating conditions. Some unknown viruses pooled from guano or oral swabs might replicate or recombine with others, so you could get new strains with unique and unpredictable biological features.
And if all this research is being performed at BSL-2, then there are questions that need to be addressed. What are the standard operating procedures in the BSL-2? What are the training records of the staff? What is the history of potential exposure events in the lab, and how were they reviewed and resolved? What are the biosafety procedures designed to prevent potential exposure events?
Living in a community, workers will be infected with pathogens from the community. Respiratory infections occur frequently. No one is exempt. What are the biosafety procedures used to deal with these complications? Do they quarantine workers who develop fevers? Do they continue to work in the lab or are they quarantined at home with N95 masks? What procedures are in place to protect the community or local hospitals if an exposed person becomes ill? Do they use mass transit?
This is just a handful of the questions that should have been reviewed in the WHO document, providing actionable evidence regarding the likelihood of a laboratory-acquired-infection origin.

Should they have been doing such experiments in a BSL-2 lab?

I would not. However, I don’t set the standard for the US or any other country. There’s definitely some risk associated with these and other SARS-like bat viruses that can enter human cells.
We also know that people who live near bat hibernacula [bat caves] have tested positive for antibodies against SARS-like bat viruses, so some of these viruses clearly can infect humans. While we have no idea whether they could actually cause severe disease or transmit from person to person, you want to err on the side of increased caution when working with these pathogens.
As a sovereign nation, China decides their own biological safety conditions and procedures for research, but they should also be held accountable for those decisions, just like any other nation that conducts high-containment biological research. As other nations develop BSL-3 facilities and begin to conduct high-containment research, each will have to make fundamental decisions about what kind of containment they use for different viruses and bacteria, along with the underlying biosafety procedures.
This is serious stuff. Global standards need to exist, especially for understudied emerging viruses. If you study hundreds of different bat viruses at BSL-2, your luck may eventually run out.

Do you think their luck ran out?

The possibility of accidental escape still remains and cannot be excluded, so further investigation and transparency is critical, but I personally feel that SARS-CoV-2 is a natural pathogen that emerged from wildlife. Its closest relatives are bat strains. Historical precedent argues that all other human coronaviruses emerged from animals. No matter how many bat viruses are at the WIV, nature has many, many more.
At this time, there’s really no strong and actionable data that argues that the virus was engineered and escaped containment. As the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 is so complex, the thought that anybody could engineer it is almost ludicrous.
When you think about the diversity of SARS-related strains that exist in nature, it’s not hard to imagine a strain that would have the complex and unpredictable biological features of SARS-CoV-2. As scientists, we tend to do experiments, read the literature, and then think we understand how nature works. We make definitive statements regarding how coronaviruses are supposed to emerge from animal reservoirs, based on one or two examples. But nature has many secrets, and our understanding is limited. Or as they said in Game of Thrones, “You know nothing, Jon Snow.”

In addition to the WIV and you, are other groups doing coronavirus engineering?

Before covid-19, there were probably three to four main groups globally. That’s changed dramatically. Now the number of labs doing coronavirus genetics is likely three or four times higher and continuing to increase. That proliferation is unsettling, because it allows many inexperienced groups, globally, to make decisions about building and isolating chimeras or natural zoonotic [viruses].
By “inexperienced,” I mean that they are applying previous discoveries and approaches in the coronavirus field, but perhaps with less respect for the inherent risk posed by this group of pathogens.
People are making chimeras right now for the variants of concern, and each of those variants is providing new insights into human transmissibility and pathogenesis.

So the virus itself is contributing to gain-of-function knowledge?

The virus is a master at finding better ways to outcompete its ancestors in humans. And each of these successful SARS-CoV-2 variants outcompetes the old variants and reveals the underlying genetics that regulate increased transmissibility and/or pathogenesis. And that information is being learned in a real-time setting and in humans, as compared to the avian-flu-transmission scenario, which was conducted under controlled artificial conditions in ferrets. I would argue that the real-time knowledge is more relevant and perhaps more unsettling than the research conducted in animal models under high containment.
Given our scientific capabilities today, every new emerging virus that causes an outbreak in the future can be studied at this level of granularity. That is unprecedented. Each could provide a classic recipe for potential dual-use applications in other strains. [Dual-use biological research is that which can be used to develop both therapeutics and bioweapons.]

Anything else about this that keeps you up at night?

The number of zoonotic coronaviruses that are poised to jump species is a major concern. That’s not going away.
Also, the biology of this virus is such that its virulence will most likely continue to increase rather than decrease, at least in the short term.

Why is that?

The transmission events occur early, while the most severe disease occurs late, after the virus is being cleared from the body. That means transmission and severe disease and death are partially uncoupled, biologically. Consequently, it doesn’t hurt the virus to increase its virulence.
If you are one of the people waiting to get the vaccine, your risk is going up with each new variant. These variants are dangerous. They want to reproduce and spread and show increased pathogenesis, even in younger adults. They have little concern for you or your family’s health and welfare, so get vaccinated.
That is the saddest thing about the pandemic. For an effective public health response, you need to respond as a national and global community with one voice. You must believe in the power of public health and public health procedures. Politics has no place in a pandemic, but that is what we ended up with—politically inspired mixed messaging.
How did that work out for America? Did we get diagnostics online quickly? No! Did we use the two-to-three-month lead time to stock hospitals with PPE or respirators? No. Rather, Americans received the message that the virus wasn’t dangerous, that it would go away or that the summer heat would destroy it. We heard rumors that mask wearing was detrimental, or that unproven drugs were miracle cures.
Some say that the true tragedy is the hundreds of thousands of Americans who didn’t need to die [but did] because the greatest nation in the world did not respond to a pandemic in a unified, science-based manner. Taiwan responded with a unified public health response and had only handfuls of cases and few deaths. The US led the world in deaths and numbers of cases. Why are the failures leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans not the subject of rigorous investigation?


oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Avery

Paul is dishonestly gish-galloping Fauci, interrupting and exclaiming and shell gaming while Fauci is only trying to correct Paul's original lie.

Sen. Rand Paul: (59:43)
Dr. Fauci, do you still support funding of the NIH funding of the lab in Wuhan?
(loaded question, the NIH does not fund Chinese research)
Dr. Anthony Fauci: (59:49)
Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
(true)
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:00:06)
Do they fund Dr. Baric?
Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:00:09)
We do not fund gain-
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:00:11)
Do you fund Dr. Baric’s gain-of-function research?
Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:00:13)
Dr. Baric does not do gain-of-function research, and if it is, it’s according to the guidelines and it is being conducted in North Carolina, not in China.
(true.  the most nuanced answer would be the way Baric answered above: "Human beings have practiced gain-of-function for the last 2,000 years....gain-of-function has been used in virology and microbiology for decades as a part of the scientific method. But that classic definition and purpose changed in 2011 and 2012.  In the pre-2012 sense, all of  virology is "gain-of-function research," in the post-2012 sense, "a committee at NIH makes determinations of gain-of-function research. The gain-of-function rules are focused on viruses of pandemic potential and experiments that intend to enhance the transmissibility or pathogenesis of SARS, MERS, and avian flu strains in humans."   Dr. Baric's research does not meet the the post-2012 NIH defined sense of "gain-of-function."  Dr. Shi's research in Wuhan may or may not be considered "gain-of-function" according to the US standard.  Dr. Baric credited Dr. Shi for providing the WIV1 genetic sequence via email in the name of good science but beyond this standard scientific cooperation, Dr. Baric shared no material, resources, funding, or methodology with the lab in Wuhan and Paul is deliberately preventing Dr. Fauci from providing that nuanced understanding.)
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:00:24)
You don’t think concerning a bat virus spike protein that he got from the Wuhan Institute into the SARS virus is gain of function?
(false.  Dr. Shi emailed Dr. Baric the genetic sequence of WIV1.  Dr. Baric never received a protein from Wuhan, wasn't SARS, wasn't gain-of-function)
Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:00:30)
That is not-
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:00:31)
You would be in the minority because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the Cambridge Working Group saying that it is gain of function.
(false.  The Cambridge Working Group's 2014 opposition to all further gain-of-function research predates Dr. Shi's discovery of WIV1 and Dr. Baric's reversal research)
Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:00:39)
Well, it is not. If you look at the grant and you look at the progress reports, it is not gain of function, despite the fact that people tweet that, they write about it-
(true.  Notice that Paul has changed the subject to research in Wuhan while Fauci is still talking about what he knows:  the NIH and Dr. Baric's research.  Classic Senatorial bait-and-switch)
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:00:50)
Do you support sending money to the Wuhan Virology Institute?
Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:00:53)
We do not send money now to the Wuhan Virology Institute.
(true)
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:00:55)
Do you support sending money? We did under your tutelage. We were sending it through EcoHealth. It was a sub-agency and a sub-grant. Do you support that the money from NIH that was going to the Wuhan Institute.
(now Paul is talking about the $133,000/year EcoHealth paid Wuhan gather bat samples using NIH funding- not Dr. Shi or Dr. Baric's chimeric research)
Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:01:08)
Let me explain to you why that was done. The SARS-CoV-1 originated in bats in China. It would have been irresponsible of us if we did not investigate the bat viruses and the serology to see who might have been infected in China.
(true)
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:01:29)
Or perhaps it would be irresponsible to send it to the Chinese government that we may not be able to trust with this knowledge and with this incredibly dangerous viruses.
(false.  Dr. Baric's research was not shared with China.  EcoHealth only paid a little money for their sample gathering services)
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:01:40)
Government scientists like yourself who favor gain-of-function research maintain the disease arose naturally.
(False.  Almost all scientists agree that the origin is complicated, mysterious, almost certainly originating naturally-  perhaps through multiple species, perhaps via multiple or even many crossover transmissions all of which argue against a lab leak.  Almost all scientists agree that China is inhibiting a full investigation into origins and should allow full international forensic access)
Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:01:43)
I don’t favor gain-of-function research in China. You are saying things that are not correct.
(true)
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:01:50)
Government defenders of gain of function, such as yourself, say that COVID-19 mutations were random and not designed by man. But interestingly, the technique that Dr. Baric developed forces mutations by serial passage through cell culture that the mutations appear to be natural. In fact, Dr. Baric named the technique the “No See ’em” technique, because the mutations appear naturally. Nicholas Baker in the New York Magazine said, “Nobody would know if the virus had been fabricated in a laboratory or grown in nature.” Government authorities in the US, including yourself, unequivocally deny that COVID-19 could have escaped a lab, but even Dr. Shi in Wuhan wasn’t so sure. According to Nicholas Baker, Dr. Shi wondered could this new virus have come from her own laboratory. She checked her records frantically and found no matches. “That really took a load off my mind,” she said. “I had not slept for days.”
(Notice the shell game- Dr. Baric's reverse genetic technique was never "gain-of-function" and never shared with China.  Dr Shi was worrying about her own chimeric reversal technique which had nothing to do with NIH or Dr. Baric and over which the US  and NIH has no control or insight or participation.  Paul is deliberately conflating these entirely independent efforts.)
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:02:46)
The director of the gain-of-function research in Wuhan couldn’t sleep because she was terrified that it might be in her lab. Dr. Baric, an advocate of gain-of-function research admits the main problem that the Institute of Virology has is the outbreak occurred in close proximity. What are the odds? Baric responded, “Could you rule out a laboratory escape? The answer in this case is probably not.”
(That's right, according to leading virologists like Dr. Baric, the odds are low but not zero)
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:03:12)
Will you in front of this group, categorically say that the COVID-19 could not have occurred through serial passage in a laboratory.
(No responsible scientist would.  What a fucking poser)
Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:03:20)
I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done, and I’m fully in favor of any further investigation of what went on in China. However, I will repeat again, the NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
(true)
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:03:44)
But you do support it in the US. We have 11 labs doing it, and you have allowed it here. We have a committee to do it, but the committee is granted every exemption. You’re fooling with Mother Nature here. You’re allowing super-viruses to be created with a 15% mortality. It’s very dangerous. I think it was a huge mistake to share this with China. It’s a huge mistake to allow this to continue in the United States. We should be very careful to investigate where this virus came from.
("You’re allowing super-viruses to be created with a 15% mortality." = evil fucking lie
"I think it was a huge mistake to share this with China." = evil fucking lie)
Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:04:10)
I fully agree that you should investigate where the virus came from. But again, we have not funded gain-of-function research on this virus in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. No matter how many times you say it, it didn’t happen.
(true)
Sen. Rand Paul: (01:04:23)
You’re parsing words. You’re parsing words. There was research done with Dr. Shi and Dr. Baric. They have collaborated on gain-of-function research where they enhance the SARS virus to infect human airway cells. They did it by merging a new spike protein on it. That is gain of function. That was joint research between the Wuhan Institute and Dr. Baric. You can’t deny it.
(evil fucking lie.  Dr. Shi emailed the WIV1 gene sequence.  Dr. Baric never shared his methodology with China.  Fauci must deny it.  Any honest man would.)
Patty Murray: (01:04:48)
Senator Paul, your time has expired.
Patty Murray: (01:04:50)
Dr. Fauci, I will let you respond to that. We need to move on.
Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:04:54)
Excuse me?
Patty Murray: (01:04:56)
I will allow you to respond to that, and then we’ll move on.
Dr. Anthony Fauci: (01:05:00)
Yeah. I mean, I just wanted to say, I don’t know how many times I can say it, Madam Chair, we did not fund gain-of-function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
(true)






Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@oromagi
You're very good at copy-pasting from Wikipedia and news articles, but there are some facts which slice it all to shreds:

(1) The Wuhan lab was conducting research into making a coronavirus more effective against humans -- this is independently true of any new or old definition of 'gain-of-function' research you want to use (although, looking into making a virus more effective is typically a type of 'gain-of-function' research) Letter confirms Wuhan lab leak was funded by US taxpayers (nypost.com) 

(2) The National Institute of Health (of which Fauci was a leading role within) gave funding to the Wuhan lab through Ecohealth Alliance. So, when Fauci and Baric say that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan, the lie by omission is that the NIH funded Ecohealth Alliance which then funded the Wuhan lab -- it's indirect funding Fauci Was 'Untruthful' to Congress About Wuhan Lab Research, New Documents Appear To Show (newsweek.com) 

(3) There has been overt admission by the NIH (in October 2021), after the Baric interview (late-July 2021) and the Washington Post analysis (mid-July 2021) you referred to, that the NIH did fund gain-of-function research NIH admits US funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan (nypost.com) . So, all of your copy-pasting to try and prove the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research is undone by their own admission lol.

So, Fauci funded the Wuhan lab (despite lying about it), through an intermediary (Ecohealth Alliance), which then researched a coronavirus to be more effective against humans (gain-of-function research). Thus, Fauci is partly responsible for the coronavirus.

Wikipedia should really fix their pages about Covid; we wouldn't want disinformation ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Avery
You claimed:

  • [Fauci] helped secure funding for the gain of function research conducted in Wuhan.
  • [Fauci] has denied being involved in gain-of-function research
  • while also denying that Dr Baric's lab was at all involved in gain-of-function research
    • Fauci contradicts himself by saying "if it is" doing the gain-of-function research, it's according to guidelines etc."
If you have read my posts with anything like comprehension, then you now understand that all of these claims are disproved by a single, easily verified fact:  

  • Since 2012 in the US, the NIH  alone defines what research is gain-of-function and what research is not. When the NIH advises Congress that Dr. Baric' s research is not gain-of-function, they do so as the final authority on the matter. The determination of gain of function has a set of specific criteria which Dr. Baric's research and EcoHealth Alliance research does not match and so officially, as a matter of governmental and scientific record neither project is gain-of-function no matter how many time others repeat that lie.
  • Although we know that US standards for for restricting research based on transmissibility are much higher than Chinese or even WHO standards, US access to Chinese research is quite limited.  The NIH does not evaluate gain-of-function in Chinese virology.
  • This simple fact makes everything Fauci said on May 11th true and much of what Paul claimed an outright lie.
You have claimed that Fauci is partly responsible for Covid, but have failed to provide any evidence to support your outlandish conspiracy theory.
You have claimed that  the Wuhan lab was conducting research into making a coronavirus more effective against humans but this claim is more than any US or international intelligence is willing to support.  What evidence supports this claim?

I'm sure it is not necessary to point out that the NY Post is not a reliable source for factual information.  Even aside from its dogshit reputation, the cascade of falsehoods contained just within your two citations discredit you.

For example, the NY Post  claims "Letter confirms Wuhan lab’s COVID-19 leak was funded by US taxpayers." Confident that 99% of its gullible readership will buy the headline and never read the letter which states unequivocally:
  • "While it might appear that the similarity of RaTG13 and BANAL-52 bat coronaviruses to SARS CoV-2 is close because it overlaps by 96-97%, experts agree that even these viruses are far too divergent to have been the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. For comparison, today's human genome is 96% similar to our closest ancestor, the chimpanzee. Humans and chimpanzees are thought to have diverged approximately6 million years ago. The analysis attached confirms that the bat coronaviruses studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant could not have been the source of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID- 19 pandemic ."
The NY Post headline states the opposite of the truth.  Why would you rely on such propaganda bullshit as evidence?

The other headline states:  "NIH admits US funded gain-of-function in Wuhan"  Again, this is the opposite of the facts.  The NIH consistently states that EcoHealth Alliance's project was not gain of function and the NIH is the final word on that label. 

Paul's argument amounts to 'money is fungible.'  Since one subcontractor paid  techs at Wuhan $133,000/year for 5 years for bat samples, and since Paul is wildly speculating  without any evidence and almost no scientific support that same lab manufactured COVID, therefore all of NIH is complicit in the manufacture of COVID.  This is the rational equivalent of saying that since the US Embassy in Beijing pays China for its electricity and since China is complicit in covering up the existence of the Abominable Snowman, the whole US State Department is complicit in concealing the Yeti.

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,850
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@oromagi
Fact Check.

There’s no evidence that the Wuhan laboratory, with or without funding from an NIH grant, created SARS-CoV-2.

Many scientists remain open to a lab escape of a natural virus, but fewer entertain the notion that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered. While this cannot be ruled out entirely, multiple coronavirus experts view this as implausible. And the only way SARS-CoV-2 could have come from the lab, whether manipulated or a naturally occurring virus, is if the Wuhan lab was in possession of a virus much more similar to SARS-CoV-2 than the coronaviruses that have been identified.

Robert F. Garry, a virologist at Tulane University School of Medicine, told us a coronavirus would have to be “at least 99%” similar to SARS-CoV-2 and “probably” 99.9% similar “to make that kind of switch in the lab at all.”

“There’s just no evidence,” he said, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology “had anything close to that.”

Shi announced in late January 2020 that a bat virus the lab named RaTG13 shares 96.2% of its genome with SARS-CoV-2, which is the highest percentage of any known virus. But experts say speculation that RaTG13 could have been changed to become SARS-CoV-2 is misplaced.

That’s because RaTG13’s genome still differs from SARS-CoV-2 by more than 1,000 nucleotides. “RaTG13 is too divergent to be this ancestral virus,” David Robertson, the head of viral genomics and bioinformatics at the University of Glasgow, told us.

Shi says there is only a genome sequence for RaTG13 anyway — live virus was never isolated from the sample.

Notably, other teams have subsequently found three other bat viruses that are more closely related to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13 when factoring in viral recombination — although they, too, are not precursors to the virus.

Paul claimed: “We don’t know if it didn’t come from the lab, but all the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab.” That’s not the case.

“On lab-leak, there’s no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab other than the coincidence of the Wuhan Institute of Virology being there,” Robertson told us.

Many scientists who study coronaviruses say what data we do have points to a natural spillover as the likely origin, given the presence of similar viruses circulating in bats, the links of many of the first COVID-19 cases to animal markets in Wuhan and past spillover events with other coronaviruses. But without identification of a near-identical virus in a bat or other animal, scientists cannot be completely certain.

Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@oromagi
Fauci is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Medicine, the American Philosophical Society,  and the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, as well as other numerous professional societies including the American Society for Clinical Investigation, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the American Association of Immunologists. He serves on the editorial boards of many scientific journals, as an editor of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, and as an author, coauthor, or editor of more than 1,000 scientific publications, including several textbooks. On March 23, 2021, Fauci was admitted as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland. 

watch the documentary "unmasking Fauci". he gets millions from vaccines (thus corruption and conflict of interest) and he also killed people by giving them bad aids medication. he's a stupid murdering fraudster. I don't care about his liberal echo chamber achievements 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Vici
he gets millions from vaccines (thus corruption and conflict of interest)
As one of the most prolific scientists in history, Fauci's participation in the invention of many important drugs and vaccines has earned him tens of millions of dollars in legal royalties all of which Fauci has donated to charity for the last twenty years to remove any accusation of corruption or conflict of interest. (fat lot of good that did him).  Unlike his accusers, Fauci's financial reports are openly available online and confirm that Fauci gives away more in earned royalties than his entire salary.  Because Fauci is a Rear Admiral in the Navy (heading up top secret bioweapons defense) as well as the Chief  for 48 years of one of the largest US government agencies- Fauci is also the best paid US government employee in history and is worth about $10 million, most of that in a diversified portfolio of non-pharma investments.    If  Fauci was in the private sector keeping all his earned royalties, he'd likely be worth hundreds of millions and long since retired.

SciCheck Digest
A nonprofit recently reported that, since 2009, the National Institutes of Health and many of its scientists received an estimated $350 million in royalties for developing experimental treatments. Some kept the money, but Dr. Anthony Fauci has said that he donates royalties he receives to charity — a detail left out of some online posts about the payments.

Full Story
In 2005, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told the Associated Press that he donates royalty payments he receives from the licensees of products he helped develop while working for the National Institutes of Health.

But that detail was not mentioned in a number of recent online posts about new reporting on royalties paid to Fauci and other NIH scientists since 2009.

Earlier this month, OpenTheBooks.com, a self-described government watchdog organization, reported on about 1,200 documents it obtained from the NIH. The documents reportedly show that, in the previous decade, the NIH and hundreds of the agency’s current and former researchers received tens of thousands of royalty payments from third parties for drugs and other treatments they invented.

“Recently, our organization at OpenTheBooks.com forced NIH to disclose over 22,100 royalty payments totaling nearly $134 million paid to the agency and nearly 1,700 NIH scientists,” Adam Andrzejewski, the group’s founder and CEO, wrote in a May 9 report. “These payments occurred during the most recently available period (September 2009 – September 2014).”

He said the group is still waiting to receive 1,800 pages of documents from the NIH about royalty payments from 2015 to 2020, but estimates that “between fiscal years 2010 and 2020, more than $350 million in royalties were paid by third-parties,” such as pharmaceutical companies, “to the agency and NIH scientists – who are credited as co-inventors” on NIH patents.

The payments are legal, but Andrzejewski argued that they represent a potential conflict of interest and should be fully disclosed to the public. But many details, such as who made the payments and the individual amounts, were redacted in the documents, he said.

“When a federal bureaucrat pops up on television giving us health instructions, who has paid them and for what research and technology?” he asked in his post. “When a patient agrees to a clinical trial or experimental treatment, what financial interests are involved?”

He added, “Rather than relentless redactions and prolonged court battles, it’s past time for the government to disclose royalty payments as a matter of routine.”
What the documents did reveal, Andrzejewski said, is that in the period from September 2009 to September 2014, Fauci received 23 royalty payments; Dr. Francis Collins, who was NIH director from 2009 to 2021, received 14 payments; and Dr. H. Clifford Lane, the NIAID deputy director for clinical research and special projects, received eight payments.

But the post on OpenTheBooks.com, which is titled “Fauci’s Royalties And The $350 Million Royalty Payment Stream HIDDEN By NIH,” never mentioned that Fauci has said he donates his royalties to charity. (That piece of information is mentioned in a separate fact sheet about the group’s investigation.)

Similarly, when actor and comedian Russell Brand read almost all of Andrzejewski’s original report in a 16-minute YouTube video that has over 1 million views since May 15, Brand also did not mention that Fauci said long ago that he does not keep the money he receives.

Instead, Brand said: “Well, there you go. Anthony Fauci, who was heralded as a saint, seems to me like he may have feet of clay. Seems to me that he may be fallible. Seems to me that he may accept payments.”

Also, a May 11 Epoch Times article quoted several Republican lawmakers criticizing Fauci because of the royalties. But the article did not add Fauci’s prior statements about not keeping the money.

Royalties paid to Fauci and other NIH scientists drew scrutiny at least once before, in 2005. The AP, based on information obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, reported that, in 2004, more than 900 current and former NIH researchers received royalty payments totaling $8.9 million for drugs and other inventions they developed while employed by the government.

“Government scientists have collected millions of dollars in royalties for experimental treatments without having to tell patients testing the treatments that the researchers’ had a financial connection, according to documents and interviews,” the AP said.

The news agency reported that Fauci and his deputy, Lane, had both received about $45,000 in royalties between 1997 and 2004 for interleukin-2, a potential AIDS treatment that they developed with another NIH physician, Joseph Kovacs.

“Both doctors said they were extremely sensitive about the possibility of an appearance of a conflict of interest and took steps on their own to address it even as they waited for their agency to do what they believed should have been done all along — fully disclose the payments to patients,” the AP said.

Fauci told the AP that he tried to refuse the royalties, but was told by officials that he was legally obligated to accept the money. He also said he was told he should not disclose the payments on his federal financial disclosure, which is available to the public upon request, because the payments were considered federal compensation instead of outside income.

He said he opted to donate his royalties instead. “I’m going to give every penny of it to charity … no matter what the yearly amount is,” Fauci was quoted saying.
The AP said Lane kept the royalties he received, but occasionally provided patients with journal articles that noted he was listed on the patent for interleukin-2.
At the time, the NIH had only recently implemented a policy to disclose its scientists’ financial stakes to patients, the AP reported.

We are not able to confirm whether Fauci donated his past royalty payments as he said, nor did the NIH or NIAID say what Fauci’s practices are now.

In a statement to FactCheck.org, the NIH said: “Royalty payments to NIH inventors are considered income and NIH does not track how individual employee incomes are spent, beyond what falls under federal financial disclosure requirements.”

Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@oromagi
"can you tell me that you have not received a royalty from any entity that you ever oversaw the distribution of money in research grants?" QUESTIONER 


"um well first of all let's talk about" Fauci 

*repeats question*


"you know i don't know as a fact but I doubt it" FAuci

"according to the regulations people who eceive royalties are not required to divulge them even on their financial statement according to the buy dole act so let me give you some example"

the words of your daddy speaks louder than your long bombastic post. 


Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@oromagi
"Did anyone get royalties?" "Nobody is required to divulge that information." Sounds like a yes to me.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Vici
 he also killed people by giving them bad aids medication.
A cruel and ignorant lie.  There was a time when AZT was the only effective treatment for AIDS, it was highly toxic and research establishing effective dosage was years away.  AIDS activists like Larry Kramer raged at Dr. Fauci for years, demanding more research money, more drugs of better efficiency, more transparency regarding government, more influence in government decision-making.  Although as head of NIAID, Fauci could only control a small part of the government response, Fauci met with the activists, took the heat for decades and worked tirelessly to improve.  Fauci become and now remains one of the World's leading  experts in HIV, heading  up the most promising projects working on vaccines and prevention drugs like Prep.  Today, Fauci can legitimately claim as much of the credit for the much longer lifespans of people with HIV as any other scientist on Earth.  In 1989, Larry Kramer considered Dr. Fauci  his arch-enemy representing all that was slow and unresponsive in pandemic response.  It wasn't until years later that Kramer realized that Dr. Fauci was the only government official who came to all the meeting, who listened to all the complaints and promised to do better.  Even though it wasn't his job and the Reagan/Bush admins didn't give a shit if every gay man died, Fauci made it his job and his life mission to make life better for people infected with HIV and for gay men in particular.  By the end of his life, Larry Kramer  world remember Fauci as "the only true and great hero" among govt. officials during the AIDS crisis.  Criticizing Fauci alone for not immediately knowing how to treat AIDS while failing to recognizing how instrumental Fauci's organizational and scientific  and personal emotional care contributions were and are  to HIV prevention and treatment is like faulting a single fireman for not saving everybody when the World Trade Center towers fell.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Vici
the words of your daddy speaks louder than your long bombastic post. 

Read more carefully.  Fauci' s financial statements are public record.  Unless he's hiding that income from the IRS, then he hasn't collected those royalties for years.  He is not required to tell us what charities he gives his income to.

Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@oromagi
"according to the regulations people who eceive royalties are not required to divulge them even on their financial statement according to the buy dole act so let me give you some example"
could have just said NO I DIDNT GET ROYALTIES or even YES I DID AND THE FUNDS WERE XYZ. instead he chooses to be a con man. also, accept the debate. 

Vici
Vici's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 333
2
4
7
Vici's avatar
Vici
2
4
7
-->
@oromagi
please read: THE REAL ANTHONY FAUCI. it is truly a great book you should actually read it maybe you wont worship him anymore. 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Saying "watch this 4 hour video" or "read this book" is strong evidence that there is no cohesive, fact-based argument to be made. Fauci's not perfect but his scientific achievements  and record of public service  are legendary and all of this conspiracy shit is just more blind QAnon cultist bullshit.  
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@oromagi
You claimed:

  • [Fauci] helped secure funding for the gain of function research conducted in Wuhan.
  • [Fauci] has denied being involved in gain-of-function research
  • while also denying that Dr Baric's lab was at all involved in gain-of-function research
    • Fauci contradicts himself by saying "if it is" doing the gain-of-function research, it's according to guidelines etc."
Yes, I claimed all these.

If you have read my posts with anything like comprehension, then you now understand that all of these claims are disproved by a single, easily verified fact:  

  • Since 2012 in the US, the NIH  alone defines what research is gain-of-function and what research is not. When the NIH advises Congress that Dr. Baric' s research is not gain-of-function, they do so as the final authority on the matter. The determination of gain of function has a set of specific criteria which Dr. Baric's research and EcoHealth Alliance research does not match and so officially, as a matter of governmental and scientific record neither project is gain-of-function no matter how many time others repeat that lie.
  • Although we know that US standards for for restricting research based on transmissibility are much higher than Chinese or even WHO standards, US access to Chinese research is quite limited.  The NIH does not evaluate gain-of-function in Chinese virology.
  • This simple fact makes everything Fauci said on May 11th true and much of what Paul claimed an outright lie.
I read it all lol. I wouldn't let your copy-paste go to waste :)

I still maintain the 1st part of my (1) argument Dr ANTHONY FAUCI's COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS to the 2022 GRADUATING CLASS of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY (debateart.com) : that even if you don't think this is gain-of-function research, the Wuhan lab was conducting research into making a coronavirus more effective against humans. That's a dangerous, potentially malicious fact that you haven't addressed in your response, and that is independent of how we define gain-of-function.

As to the definition of gain-of-function, I argue that attempting to make a coronavirus more effective against humans should be considered gain-of-function, due to it fitting many definitions:

(a) "it is used to describe a change to the genome of any biological entity" Gain-of-Function Research Review: Report | NHMRC 
(b) "GoF work attempts to modify a biological pathway in a cell line or an organism in order to enhance or broaden the scope of some particular process." Gain of Function | Science | AAAS 
(c) "Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens." Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis (nih.gov)
(d)"The process by which such a change occurs, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of the genetic material."    Gain-of-function - definition of Gain-of-function by The Free Dictionary 

I'm struggling to find a random definition which does not describe what the Wuhan lab was doing.

Also, the NIH ended up admitting to doing gain-of-function research anyway (I linked Yahoo News this time, rather than NYPost, because I didn't want you to become upset like we see later) NIH Admits to Funding Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan, Says EcoHealth Violated Reporting Requirements (yahoo.com) 

Finally, there is clearly conflict of interest if we're accusing the NIH of doing (through the Wuhan lab) gain-of-function research, whilst they are the ones in charge of the definition. Would you trust a murderer to fairly redefine the term "murder", if she was on trial for it?

There are far too many things wrong with what you're saying for anything to accept it.

You have claimed that Fauci is partly responsible for Covid, but have failed to provide any evidence to support your outlandish conspiracy theory.
"So, Fauci funded the Wuhan lab (despite lying about it), through an intermediary (Ecohealth Alliance), which then researched a coronavirus to be more effective against humans (gain-of-function research). Thus, Fauci is partly responsible for the coronavirus." -- evidence cited above in my following thread comment: Dr ANTHONY FAUCI's COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS to the 2022 GRADUATING CLASS of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY (debateart.com)

You have claimed that  the Wuhan lab was conducting research into making a coronavirus more effective against humans but this claim is more than any US or international intelligence is willing to support.  What evidence supports this claim?
The sources I cited have the evidence.

I'm sure it is not necessary to point out that the NY Post is not a reliable source for factual information.  Even aside from its dogshit reputation
This is Ad Hominem, so we should just ignore it.

For example, the NY Post  claims "Letter confirms Wuhan lab’s COVID-19 leak was funded by US taxpayers." Confident that 99% of its gullible readership will buy the headline and never read the letter which states unequivocally:
  • "While it might appear that the similarity of RaTG13 and BANAL-52 bat coronaviruses to SARS CoV-2 is close because it overlaps by 96-97%, experts agree that even these viruses are far too divergent to have been the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. For comparison, today's human genome is 96% similar to our closest ancestor, the chimpanzee. Humans and chimpanzees are thought to have diverged approximately6 million years ago. The analysis attached confirms that the bat coronaviruses studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant could not have been the source of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID- 19 pandemic ."
I control+f'd for your quote here, but I couldn't find it in the article you seem to be referencing: Letter confirms Wuhan lab leak was funded by US taxpayers (nypost.com) . That particular news article actually says the complete opposite of what you claim:

"Whether this particular virus evolved into SARS-CoV-2 is beside the point: The WIV [Wuhan Institute of Virology] was engaged in this type of research, with US government support, and this makes it more, not less, likely that the COVID-19 pandemic is a manmade catastrophe. Another WIV project, other than the specific one in the Tabak letter, could have created SARS-CoV-2."

Paul's argument amounts to 'money is fungible.' 
Are you arguing against Paul or me?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,850
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
The Covid 19 virus had to originate in America. Even Trump confirmed they was a single case of Covid found in a person returning from China  before Trump imposed a travel ban to and from China.

China’s lockdown shutout the virus within months of its discovery.

That eliminates China as the source of Covid. But America reported the highest number of cases and deaths from Covid. This could only have been possible if America was the source of Covid and was too late to discover Covid cases because it confused it with the annual common flu.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,255
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Avery
All those awards from pharmaceutical companies is evidence of corruption, not actual accolades.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,255
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Honestly, Oro is the biggest apologizer for corporate elites, you have to wonder what awards they gave him as well.....
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Avery
I'm struggling to find a random definition which does not describe what the Wuhan lab was doing.
Your struggle is personal.  Nothing in your definitions is inconsistent with what I've said, you just don't understand what you are cut and pasting.

Recall these explanations-

POST#6:
Gain of function, in many ways, is basic biological research. It’s done all the time 
POST#8:
"Human beings have practiced gain-of-function for the last 2,000 years, mostly in plants, where farmers would always save the largest seeds from the healthiest plants to replant the following year. The reason we can manage to have 7 billion people here on the planet is basically through direct or indirect genetic engineering through gain-of-function research. The simple definition of gain-of-function research is the introduction of a mutation than enhances a gene’s function or property—a process used commonly in genetic, biologic, and microbiologic research.
In virology, historically, attenuated vaccines were generated by gain-of-function studies, which took human virus pathogens and adapted them for improved growth in cell culture, which reduced virus virulence in the natural human host.
So gain-of-function has been used in virology and microbiology for decades as a part of the scientific method. But that classic definition and purpose changed in 2011 and 2012, when researchers in Wisconsin and the Netherlands were funded to do gain-of-function research on avian flu transmissibility."
Now, notice how your definitions a, b, and d are entirely consistent with farmers conserving seeds 2000 years ago.  Those definitions do not describe a controversial technique- they describe much of biology as a science.  Domesticating a wolf into a dog, for example, is "changing the genome of a biological entity"  Selecting almond trees for less cyanide content is " modify[ing] a biological pathway in a cell line or an organism in order to enhance or broaden the scope of some particular process."  

If you oppose gain-of-function research by these definitions then you oppose the domestication of plants and animals that allowed human civilization to begin.

Definition c is the NIH's definition. Recall Dr.  Baric' s explanation in POST #9:

"A committee at NIH makes determinations of gain-of-function research. The gain-of-function rules are focused on viruses of pandemic potential and experiments that intend to enhance the transmissibility or pathogenesis of SARS, MERS, and avian flu strains in humans. WIV1 is approximately 10% different from SARS. Some argue that “SARS coronavirus” by definition covers anything in the sarbecoronavirus genus. By this definition, the Chinese might be doing gain-of-function experiments, depending on how the chimera behaves. Others argue that SARS and WIV1 are different, and as such the experiments would be exempt. Certainly, the CDC considers SARS and WIV1 to be different viruses. Only the SARS coronavirus from 2003 is a select agent. Ultimately, a committee at the NIH is the final arbiter and makes the decision about what is or is not a gain-of-function experiment."

Whether you choose to comprehend it or not, when Paul says that NIH is funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan he has no facts about what research is done in Wuhan.  When Paul says that Dr. Baric' s WIV1 chimera research is gain-of-function it is true in  the generic, non-scary sense and a fucking lie in the NIH specific scary sense.  When Paul says that EcoHealth Alliance was doing gain-of-function that's a nasty, evil lie because Paul is enough of a doctor to understand that EcoHealth wasn't working with human virus or making any virologic changes at all.  When Paul says that Dr. Shi is gain-of-function research at Wuhan that is probably true since the scary NIH definition does not extend to Chinese research and the non-scary definition applies to most of virology.  Nevertheless, Paul is claiming to know a fact without evidence and responsible scientists only note that Chinese research is too secretive to describe with certainty.

Your failure to comprehend this fact is not an argument.

Also, the NIH ended up admitting to doing gain-of-function research anyway (I linked Yahoo News this time, rather than NYPost, because I didn't want you to become upset like we see later) NIH Admits to Funding Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan, Says EcoHealth Violated Reporting Requirements (yahoo.com) 
Repeating your lies doesn't make them more true.   Just like the NYPost article, the letter is linked to in the article and the letter very specifically refutes Yahoo's claim that "NIH Admits to Funding Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan"

Here's that letter, you should read it for yourself instead of accepting the headline as proof!

It is important to state at the outset that published genomic data demonstrate that the bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. and subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) are not and could not have SARS-CoV-2.  Both the progress report and the analysis attached here again confirm that conclusion, as the sequences of the viruses are genetically very distant .....

This progress report was submitted to NIH in August 2021.... (that is, the NIH did not have this info in May when Fauci testified)....

EcoHealthAlliance was testing if spike proteins from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China were capable of binding to the human ACE2 receptor in a mouse model In this limited experiment, laboratory mice infected with the SHC014 WIV1 bat coronavirus became sicker than those infected with the WIV1 bat coronavirus.   As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research, as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do. Regardless, the viruses being studied under this grant were genetically very distant from SARS-CoV-2 ...

[So, neither SHC014 or WIV1 can be gain-of-function because neither virus exists in humans, also gain-of-function research must be intentional, unexpected results never qualify as gain-of-function].

***The research plan was reviewed by NIH in advance of funding, and NIH determined that it did not to fit the definition of research involving enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential(ePPP) because these bat coronaviruses had not been shown to infect humans.   As such, the research was not subject to departmental review under the HHSP3CO Framework ***

[That could not be more clear:  this research is not gain-of-function, this virus had zero pandemic potential and no changes were being made to this naturally occurring bat virus.   Furthermore, as Dr. Baric put it, "we didn’t gain any function—rather, we retained function. Moreover, the chimera was attenuated in mice as compared to the parental mouse-adapted virus, so this would be considered a loss of function."]

"While it might appear that the similarity ofRaTG13and BANAL-52 bat coronaviruses to SARS CoV-2 is close because it over laps by 96-97%, experts agree that even these viruses are far too divergent to have been the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. Fo comparison, today's human genome is 96% similar to our closest ancestor ,the chimpanzee. Humans and chimpanzees are thought to have diverged approximately 6 million years ago. The analysis attached confirms that the bat coronaviruses studied under the EcoHealth Alliance grant could not have been the source of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID- 19 pandemic

I don't know why you would trust the headline and not the letter itself but once you read the letter it is a 100% clear  that the headline "NIH Admits to Funding Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan"  is stating the exact opposite of the truth.  The NIH, then and now, comprehensively (and since the NIH has the final word, irrefutably) denies funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Avery


Finally, there is clearly conflict of interest if we're accusing the NIH of doing (through the Wuhan lab) gain-of-function research, whilst they are the ones in charge of the definition. Would you trust a murderer to fairly redefine the term "murder", if she was on trial for it?
To extend your metaphor, a US Senator falsely accuses a US Attorney General of financing a murder in China because the FBI once purchased a bunch of criminal records from China.  The Attorney General's honest and correct response is that he has little information about said murder and no jurisdiction to make that determination but the forensic information he does have suggests natural causes, not murder.  Furthermore, the legal definition of murder may be different in China.  In any case, the AG can state unequivocally that the FBI did not fund any Chinese murderers.

Again, You have claimed that Fauci is partly responsible for Covid, but have failed to provide any evidence to support your outlandish conspiracy theory.

"So, Fauci funded the Wuhan lab (despite lying about it), through an intermediary (Ecohealth Alliance), which then researched a coronavirus to be more effective against humans (gain-of-function research). Thus, Fauci is partly responsible for the coronavirus." -- evidence cited above in my following thread comment:
  • You are just repeating  your conspiracy theory's thesis.  I have disproved that Fauci  lied about anything during his May 11th exchange with Paul and EcoHealth's survey of WIV1 viruses could not have resulted in COVID-19- in fact it would be more genetically likely for a human woman to magically give birth to a live chimpanzee then for WIV1 to magically transform into SARS2.
You have claimed that  the Wuhan lab was conducting research into making a coronavirus more effective against humans but this claim is more than any US or international intelligence is willing to support.  What evidence supports this claim?

The sources I cited have the evidence.
You have cited headlines without bothering to read the articles themselves which disprove your claim utterly.  This "evidence" is dismissed with a derisive snort.

I'm sure it is not necessary to point out that the NY Post is not a reliable source for factual information.  Even aside from its dogshit reputation
This is Ad Hominem, so we should just ignore it.
Wikipedia states:

Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counterarguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise, or has a conflict of interest.
Since the Columbia Journalism Review is the most prestigious voice in English language professional journalism, let's consult that top  expert for their opinion regarding the quality of the NY Post as a source of truthful information:

"New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem—a force for evil." Jan/Feb 1980

"But today’s front page of the Post is a black mark in the annals of newspaper history, and it shows that the Murdoch paper deserves no benefit of the doubt. Any pretense of professionalism—as thin as it might have been—is gone." Apr 2013 (regarding fake news published about the Boston Marathon bombing)

"As Bannon famously once said, “The real opposition is the media, and the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” Such a strategy is not primarily dependent on the quality and credibility of the shit; it’s the flooding part that’s the most important. Last month, Matt Gertz, of Media Matters for America, noted, in a piece jumping off Bannon’s quote, that because the “newshole”—newspaper pages, broadcast segments, and so forth—is finite, you can game it if you can pump out more toxicity than there’s room to report. “Trump and his allies have overwhelmed the system,” Gertz wrote. “There’s just too much shit.” Oct 2020  From "Flooding the Zone with the New York Post"

Professional Journalists officially consider the NY Post a disgrace to journalism and definitely not a newspaper in the traditional sense of providing news.  When MAGA wants to pump out a lie, they take it to the WSJ first, if the WSJ won't print it, they take it to Fox, if Fox refuses to put their name behind it, they take it to the NY Post- the liar of last resort.

Are you arguing against Paul or me?
WTF?  Your whole original thesis in POST#4 was "Rand Paul claims..."  If you are done promoting Paul's lies then this conversation is over.

Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
All those awards from pharmaceutical companies is evidence of corruption, not actual accolades.
Could be. I only know Fauci was partly responsible for Covid. I don't know anything else about him.

Honestly, Oro is the biggest apologizer for corporate elites, you have to wonder what awards they gave him as well.....
He could be a paid shill working for some organization, used to astroturf elite interests. He's always defending elite interests and seems to go to great lengths to defend them.

I wouldn't bet my life on it, but the possibility is real.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,255
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Avery
Could be. I only know Fauci was partly responsible for Covid.
While this is likely true and hard to prove, his most egregious sins consisted of using his government position to pitch vaccines for the pharmaceutical industry. It just came out this week that Pfizer KNEW there were no tests indicating the vaccines were anything other than an experimental treatment and did very little to stop the spread of Covid, yet people lost their jobs and livelihoods over policies stemming from Fauci's sales pitch. And it's not even what Fauci said that was so morbidly evil, after all, you expect government to be corrupt. It's what he didn't say about staying fit and active, losing weight, keeping your immune system strong by avoiding depression. In fact, most of what he said encouraged those death factors from covid by encouraging distancing and isolation and wearing masks so there was no human contact to stop the depression that led to weak immune systems and death from not only Covid, but a whole slew of other things afterward.

All to sell a wonderdrug that we now know was not so wonderful?