NIH Funding Wuhan Experiment
The recent admission of NIH Director Lawrence Tabak about funding EcoHealth Alliance’s research into bat coronaviruses in China is almost as hot as the smoking prop gun of Alec Baldwin.
We now know that the NIH-funded experiments in Wuhan Institute of Virology resulted in a more infectious pathogen. However, we’re still caught up in semantic games.
In the same way that Baldwin admits to not knowing the gun was loaded, Tabak is saying that the results of EcoHealth Alliance’s research were ‘unexpected’.
Also, in a recent interview at ABC with George Stephanopoulos, Dr. Fauci stood by his denial of any culpability from any of the results of the research.
[wpadcenter_adgroup adgroup_ids=141 align=’none’ num_ads=1 num_columns=1]
NIH – ‘We got this’
In a congressional hearing in July of this year, Senator Rand Paul got into a heated discussion with Dr. Anthony Fauci over funding experimenting research in Wuhan. Paul was pressing Fauci on his role in it as a form of Gain-of-Function research. Fauci claims that the research the NIH has conducted was vetted, justified, and had no relation whatsoever with the emergence of Covid-19.
To be clear, Paul did not accuse Fauci or WIV of causing the pandemic. However, given that we are still in a pandemic caused by a coronavirus whose origins we do still do not know, this discussion is more relevant than ever.
In the letter to the office of Rep. Comey, Dr. Tabak reinforces the language of Dr. Fauci. He claims due diligence and demonstrates the lawful nature of the research.
If you ask Dr. Tabak, this is really something that should not get the public worrying. But if you read into the letter, one would ask why the NIH seems worried to control the language and tone of the letter.
Control the Language
In the letter by Dr. Tabak, he calls the funding a ‘limited experiment’, and implying the results as random. He writes, ‘As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research, as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do’.
He also refers to the spike proteins as ‘from naturally occurring bat coronaviruses circulating in China’ rather than calling them for what they are—novel spike proteins. It was also clear that from the experiment, we can infer that the scientists are trying to figure out which virus is more lethal.
Did they rule out harm during the research? Given how they are quick to dodge any implications from this kind of research with a ‘business as usual’ approach suggests carelessness and negligence. It is also clear that both Dr. Tabak and Dr. Fauci claim that there is an oversight and everything is lawful, but downplays any risk this kind of experiment poses.
According to a National Review article in May, Dr. Richard Ebright, an expert on biochemistry from Rutgets University, claims that these experiments are too risky to try.
He says in straightforward language, ‘The Wuhan lab used NIH funding to construct novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses able to infect human cells and laboratory animals,” he shared. “This is high-risk research that creates new potential pandemic pathogens (i.e., potential pandemic pathogens that exist only in a lab, not in nature). This research matches — indeed epitomizes — the definition of ‘gain of function research of concern’ for which federal funding was ‘paused’ in 2014-2017.”
Perhaps, in the same way that we don’t play with guns, we shouldn’t be playing with nature.
Reactions to NIH Story
It's now an indisputable fact that Anthony Fauci funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. "Conspiracy theorists" were right. Again.
It's now an indisputable fact that Anthony Fauci funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.
— Natalie Winters (@nataliegwinters) October 23, 2021
"Conspiracy theorists" were right.
Again.https://t.co/5YOir80tFW
Relman: "It’s just another chapter in a sad tale of inadequate oversight, disregard for risk, and insensitivity to the importance of transparency..[I]t’s difficult to understand why NIH and EcoHealth have...not explained..irregularities with the..grant."
Relman: "It’s just another chapter in a sad tale of inadequate oversight, disregard for risk, and insensitivity to the importance of transparency..[I]t’s difficult to understand why NIH and EcoHealth have…not explained..irregularities with the..grant."https://t.co/hprbgMxIHg
— Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) October 22, 2021
For those that don’t know - this is how the @NIH defined “gain-of-function” on their website until at least October 19th, 2021. Just 3 days ago. It looks like this section was deleted, and the page was edited, within the last 2-3 days. @R_H_Ebright @RandPaul
For those that don’t know – this is how the @NIH defined “gain-of-function” on their website until at least October 19th, 2021. Just 3 days ago.
— Jeremy Redfern (@JeremyRedfernFL) October 22, 2021
It looks like this section was deleted, and the page was edited, within the last 2-3 days. @R_H_Ebright @RandPaul pic.twitter.com/wZ9Iy5vWaT
[wpadcenter_adgroup adgroup_ids=141 align=’none’ num_ads=1 num_columns=1]