Lab Leak?
-
But, in the big picture, the research in gain of function was totes worth it, even if it might cause a pandemic, said Fauci:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
According to The Weekend Australian, Fauci wrote in 2012 that continuing dangerous gain-of-function research was worth the risk of a pandemic.
In previously unreported remarks, Dr Fauci supported the contentious gain-of-function experiments that some now fear might have led to an escape from a Wuhan laboratory causing the Covid-19 pandemic, calling them “important work”.
An investigation by The Weekend Australian has also confirmed Dr Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, did not alert senior White House officials before lifting the ban on gain-of-function research in 2017.
Writing in the American Society for Microbiology in October 2012, Dr Fauci acknowledged the controversial scientific research could spark a pandemic.
“In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic?” he wrote. “Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?
“Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.
After telling Republican Senator Rand Paul two weeks ago that he "never" approved grant funding through the NIH for gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Fauci changed his tune this week and said he simply told Chinese Communist Party controlled scientists not to conduct the research.
From Fauci's exchange with Republican Senator John Kennedy:
Kennedy: “Here’s where I’m getting at: You gave them money, and you said, ‘Don’t do gain-of-function research.’”
Fauci: “Correct.”
Kennedy: “And they said, ‘We won’t.’”
Fauci: “Correct.”
Kennedy: “And you have no way of knowing whether they did or not, except you trust them. Is that right?”
Fauci: “Well, we generally always trust the grantee to do what they say, and you look at the results—”
Kennedy: “Have you ever had a grantee lie to you?”
Fauci: “I cannot guarantee that a grantee has not lied to us because you never know.” -
It’s too bad there is such a bulls eye on Fauci. To lay this at his feet is such motivated rhetoric at this point in my opinion as I’ve seen him as a right wing target.
He certainly did not invent “gain of function” and if you really cared there is an incredible amount of info on that topic. I’ve been down that rabbit hole.
Here’s a primer on the topic. You won’t even find Fauci’s name listed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_of_function_research
The real prize is if China accidentally let it leak and has covered it up. I wish people would stay focused..
-
He certainly did not invent “gain of function” and if you really cared there is an incredible amount of info on that topic.
That's not my point. The point is that he said the risks of going through a pandemic would be worth it to gain the knowledge.
"“Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks."
-
He certainly did not invent “gain of function” and if you really cared there is an incredible amount of info on that topic.
That's not my point. The point is that he said the risks of going through a pandemic would be worth it to gain the knowledge.
"“Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks."
Got it.. so probably half the scientists looking at gain of function support it using Fauci’s reasoning and half don’t.
And now suddenly this is a “bombshell”. I feel like people assume readers are idiots, and they are probably more right than wrong.
-
-
@loki the question is simple: "Now, with more than half a million dead Americans, and, what, 3 million dead around the planet, do you still think it was 'worth it'?"
Of course, this question is moot, because of the wet markets, right?
Believe it or not this is not a simple question. The world failed the pandemic test and it was gentle in terms of only killing a vulnerable population. We got our warning. But of course when you can’t a significant group to wear masks or get vaccines, the warning likely didn’t help as much as it should of.
Many of those deaths could have been prevented by vaccinating at risk groups a month or two even early….some would say preventing a second Trump term was worth it.
There is malevolence everywhere and picking on Fauci is a red herring and honestly irrelevant to any real question we should be asking.
-
Fauci's toast.
The highest paid government worker in the country is a dead job walking. He just doesn't realize it, yet. The media that fawned on his every word and promoted the Trump=dolt story, is fixing to turn on him like a ravening wolf.
CNN and PMSNBC will try to pin this one on Trump, but it ain't sticking. Too many smoking guns pointed Fauci's way...Didn't help that he flat lied to Dr. Paul, either.
-
"My pronouns are FA/FO." - Mik, 2024
-
-
The coverup is indisputable and was known last year. That’s more than enough cause for international sanctions.
-
-
Not sure if this one has been posted - Medium
Thank you. While the article leans in one direction, I learned quite a bit. Of course it would be great to see China refute the points….if ever there warranted a “commission” to look at things this is it. Schumer, Pelloni, Schiff, Buehler?????
-
Not sure if this one has been posted - Medium
Thank you. While the article leans in one direction, I learned quite a bit. Of course it would be great to see China refute the points….if ever there warranted a “commission” to look at things this is it. Schumer, Pelloni, Schiff, Buehler?????
Early on I was thinking it was 2/3 that the lab had something to do with it. Now, I'm pretty close to a 95% certain that the lab was responsible.
