Rhetorical question: Why isn’t this getting more media coverage?
============
According to The Weekend Australian (channeled thru Townhall)….
In October 2012, Dr. Anthony Fauci wrote in the Journal of the American Society for Microbiology that “continuing gain-of-function research (on coronaviruses) is worth the risk of a pandemic”.
Say, what?
==============
To put the quote in context…
> Gain-of-function (GOF) research modifies viruses to make them more transmissible and more dangerous (i.e. lethal) to humans.
> Ostensibly, the research is (was) done to understand how the mutations can occur … and to fast-start development of preventive therapeutics and specific antidotes should they occur.
> Prior to 2014, GOF research was conducted in the U.S. in both military and private (e.g. university) laboratories.
> At the time, there were broadening ethical concerns that such research could be weaponized … and posed a public health risk (i.e. accidental release of the virus)
> In 2014, President Obama — nudged by a handful of reported laboratory “accidents” — issued an executive order banning GOF research in the U.S. and the funding of such research.
> But, of course, Obama’s EO had no force to stop GOF research outside the U.S., say, in China.
=================
OK, that sets the stage…
Again, Fauci is on record as a proponent of GOF research:
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?
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. Source
That was in 2012
In 2014, Obama issued his EO banning U.S. involvement in GOF research.
==============
Subsequent to the 2014 EO, the NIH (i.e. Fauci) continued to fund internationally-based scientific research.
No problem with that, except …
Despite Fauci’s initial denials and obfuscations, it is becoming increasing evidentially apparent that some of the Fauci-approved NIH grants made their way to the Wuhan labs and — given the fungibility of research grants — likely supported their GOF research.
To be fair: (1) The potentially problematic Wuhan grant amounts were small — reported to be under $1 million (2) the grants were funneled through an intermediary not-for-profit (the EcoHealth Alliance), and (3) arguably, there were implied restrictions on the grants’ usage and a presumption that grantees would operate in compliance.
Nonetheless, (1) the grants were made under Fauci’s signature, (2) they were channeled to Wuhan and (3) Wuhan was doing GOF research.
Said differently, Fauci has deep self-interest in positioning the pandemic’s source as a “natural evolutionary species-jump (from bats)” … and pooh-poohing the possibility that the source was a predictable lab-leak (with his fingerprints on it).
Otherwise, Fauci and the NIH have complicity in triggering the coronavirus.
Hmm.
=============
So, the question that I’d like somebody to ask:
“Dr. Fauci, given a covid fatality rate of more than a million deaths globally — and over 600,000 deaths in the U.S. — do you stand by your 2012 position that gain-of-function research on coronaviruses was worth the risk of a pandemic?”
My hunch: His views have “evolved”…
SHARE THIS POST WITH FRIENDS & FAMILY
Like this:
Like Loading...
The Homa Files 