NIH letter debunks 'gain of function' denia

Did he lie to Congress (perjury). Yes or No?

 

Demonic.

 

If that’s true, that’s genuinely evil.

 

The Democrats will protect and excuse St. Fauci to the last ditch, what else CAN they do, THEY'RE the ones that canonized him.

 

Fauci, a Trump task force pick, Trump picks the best people

 

Trump once again.....what on earth DID you do before he came along?

 

lol, you can't even admit Fauci was part of the Trump task force, too funny

 

No one is going to believe you, so I'll help you out.

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.
;
Primary Source:

Selgelid, M.J. Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis. Sci Eng Ethics 22, 923–964 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1

See also:

Casadevall, A., Howard, D., & Imperiale, M. J. (2014a). An epistemological perspective on the value of gain-of-function experiments involving pathogens with pandemic potential. mBio, 5(5), e01875-14.

Cello, J., Paul, A. V., & Wimmer, E. (2002). Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: Generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science, 297, 1016–1018.

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2013). A framework for guiding U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funding decisions about research proposals with the potential for generating highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 viruses that are transmissible among mammals by respiratory droplets. http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/funding-hpai-h5n1.pdf.

Enserink, M. (2011). Scientists brace for media storm around controversial flu studies. ScienceInsider. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/11/scientists-brace-media-storm-around-controversial-flu-studies.

Institute of Medicine (IOM). (2014). Oversight and review of clinical gene transfer protocols: Assessing the role of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI). (2010). New directions: The ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Washington, D.C. http://bioethics.gov/synthetic-biology-report.

Wain-Hobson, S. (2014). The irrationality of GOF avian influenza virus research. Frontiers in Public Health, 2(77), 1–4.

White House. (2014). Doing diligence to assess the risks and benefits of life sciences gain-of-function research. https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/201...benefits-life-sciences-gain-function-research.

 

You are grotesquely misinformed.

Okay....

October 16, 2014

Statement on Funding Pause on Certain Types of Gain-of-Function Research

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy announced(link is external) today that the U.S. government will undertake a deliberative process to assess the risks and benefits of certain gain-of-function (GOF) experiments with influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses in order to develop a new Federal policy regarding the funding of this research. During this deliberative process, U.S. government agencies will institute a pause on the funding of any new studies involving these experiments. For purposes of the deliberative process and this funding pause, “GOF studies” refers to scientific research that increases the ability of any of these infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility among mammals by respiratory droplets.

NIH has funded such studies because they help define the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, enable the assessment of the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, and inform public health and preparedness efforts. These studies, however, also entail biosafety and biosecurity risks, which need to be understood better. NIH will be adhering to this funding pause until the robust and broad deliberative process described by the White House — including consultation with the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) and input from the National Research Council of the National Academies — is completed.

During this pause, NIH will not provide new funding for any projects involving these experiments and encourages those currently conducting this type of work — whether federally funded or not — to voluntarily pause their research while the government determines how to proceed.

Public involvement in this deliberative process is key, and the process is thus designed to be transparent, accessible, and open to input from all sources. Consultation with the NSABB, the first step in this process, will take place October 22, and I encourage you to follow these deliberations closely.

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
Director, National Institutes of Health

https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-w...ng-pause-certain-types-gain-function-research

See also....


Summary:
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Department of Health and Human Services today announced that the U.S. Government is launching a deliberative process to assess the potential risks and benefits associated with a subset of life sciences research known as “gain-of-function” studies.

Following recent biosafety incidents at Federal research facilities, the U.S. Government has taken a number of steps to promote and enhance the Nation’s biosafety and biosecurity, including immediate and longer term measures to review activities specifically related to the storage and handling of infectious agents.

As part of this review, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Department of Health and Human Services today announced that the U.S. Government is launching a deliberative process to assess the potential risks and benefits associated with a subset of life sciences research known as “gain-of-function” studies. With an ultimate goal of better understanding disease pathways, gain-of-function studies aim to increase the ability of infectious agents to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or by increasing its transmissibility.

Because the deliberative process launching today will aim to address key questions about the risks and benefits of gain-of-function studies, during the period of deliberation, the U.S. Government will institute a pause on funding for any new studies that include certain gain-of-function experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses. Specifically, the funding pause will apply to gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.

During this pause, the U.S. Government will not fund any new projects involving these experiments and encourages those currently conducting this type of work – whether federally funded or not – to voluntarily pause their research while risks and benefits are being reassessed. The funding pause will not apply to the characterization or testing of naturally occurring influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses unless there is a reasonable expectation that these tests would increase transmissibility or pathogenicity.

The deliberative process will involve two distinct but complementary entities: the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) and the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies.

The NSABB will serve as the official Federal advisory body for providing advice on oversight of this area of dual-use research, in keeping with Federal rules and regulations. The NSABB will meet on October 22, 2014, to debate the issues and begin the process of developing recommendations.

Early-on in the deliberative process, the NRC will be asked to convene a scientific symposium focused on the issues associated with gain-of-function research. The NRC will also hold a second symposium later in the deliberative process, which will include a discussion of the NSABB’s draft recommendations regarding gain-of-function research.

The NSABB, informed by discussion at the NRC public consultations, will provide recommendations to the heads of all federal entities that conduct, support, or have an interest in life sciences research. The final NSABB recommendations as well as the outcomes of the NRC conferences will inform the development and adoption of a new U.S. Government policy regarding gain-of-function research.

The broader life-sciences community will be encouraged to provide input through both the NRC and NSABB deliberative processes. The funding pause will end when the U.S. government has adopted a Federal policy regarding gain-of-function studies on the basis of the deliberative process described above, which is expected to occur 2015.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...benefits-life-sciences-gain-function-research

 

"incontrovertible proof"?

That statement is from Rep. Doug LaMalfa:

Rep. Doug LaMalfa said in a statement to Fox News Friday.
"Yet here we have incontrovertible proof that he has been intentionally lying to Congress," he added. "Dr. Fauci must resign and should face prosecution for perjury."

LaMalfa is a discredited Trump-Supporting Conspiracy Monger, whose "statements" have less credibility than a Bigfoot Sighting.

"incontrovertible proof"?

 

Pavlov's dog revisited once again.

 

Hey, I'm glad the GOP are FINALLY going to conduct investigations instead of simply complaining.

 

Do you realize how NIH funding works? Do you think the institute director hand picks every single grant of the 1000s they fund every year?

Here is how it works: The grant proposal is peer reviewed by a panel in a study section. If the panel and its chair recommend the proposal for funding, it goes to the NIH council, which again reviews all the proposals in the top 10-15% of proposals. Once the council approves, the proposal gets funded. The institute director can object to that funding, but normally doesn't get involved. Their role is to set the broad priorities of what kind of research gets funded.

Now, for the proposal in question, which was on Sars-Cov1 and how we can understand its evolution from bat coronaviruses, apparently none of the many experts who looked at the proposal and recommended it for funding had any problems with it. Now, it would be unusual for an institute director to prevent a proposal from getting funded against expert peer-reviewers' advice.

Of course, the RW has no interest in those details, all they want to do is spout the conspiracy theories that Fauci created a bioweapon on purpose, because they want to character-assassinate the man.

 

Did anybody read the actual letter?

https://twitter.com/gopoversight/status/1450934193177903105?s=21

I see you didn't. Shocking!!!!

 

People are using the recent NIH letter as evidence Fauci admitted to COVID gain of function research, but the letter doesn't say that.

Your source also says there will be a pause on gain of function testing.

 

Exactly.

 

Early last month, The Intercept published more than 900 pages of documents it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the NIH, relating to EcoHealth Alliance’s grant research. But there was one document missing, a fifth and final progress report that EcoHealth Alliance had been required to submit at the end of its grant period in 2019.

In its letter Wednesday, NIH included that missing progress report, which was dated August 2021. That report described a “limited experiment,” as the NIH letter phrased it, in which laboratory mice infected with an altered virus became “sicker than those infected with” a naturally occurring one.

The letter did not mention the phrase “gain-of-function research” that has become so central to the bitter clashes over COVID-19’s origins. That type of controversial research—the manipulation of pathogens with the aim of making them more infectious in order to gauge their risk to humans—has divided the virology community. A review system established in 2017 requires federal agencies to particularly scrutinize any research proposals that involve enhancing a pathogen’s infectiousness to humans.

Dr. Fauci’s spokesperson told Vanity Fair that EcoHealth Alliance’s research did not fall under that framework, since the experiments being funded “were not reasonably expected to increase transmissibility or virulence in humans.”

However, Alina Chan, a Boston-based scientist and coauthor of the book Viral: The Search for the Origin of COVID-19, said the NIH was in a “very challenging position. They funded research internationally to help study novel pathogens and prevent against them. But they had no way to know what viruses had been collected, what experiments had been conducted, and what accidents might have occurred.”


As scientists remain in a stalemate over the pandemic’s origins, another disclosure last month made clear that EcoHealth Alliance, in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was aiming to do the kind of research that could accidentally have led to the pandemic. On September 20, a group of internet sleuths calling themselves DRASTIC (short for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19) released a leaked $14 million grant proposal that EcoHealth Alliance had submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

It proposed partnering with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and constructing SARS-related bat coronaviruses into which they would insert “human-specific cleavage sites” as a way to “evaluate growth potential” of the pathogens. Perhaps not surprisingly, DARPA rejected the proposal, assessing that it failed to fully address the risks of gain-of-function research.

The leaked grant proposal struck a number of scientists and researchers as significant for one reason. One distinctive segment of SARS-CoV-2’s genetic code is a furin cleavage site that makes the virus more infectious by allowing it to efficiently enter human cells. That is just the feature that EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology had proposed to engineer in the 2018 grant proposal. “If I applied for funding to paint Central Park purple and was denied, but then a year later we woke up to find Central Park painted purple, I’d be a prime suspect,” said Jamie Metzl, a former executive vice president of the Asia Society, who sits on the World Health Organization’s advisory committee on human genome editing and has been calling for a transparent investigation into COVID-19’s origins.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-risky-virus-research-in-wuhan

 

This is Rand Paul’s fever dream!

Nothing like telling the uninformed it says something else than what the letter says. Then the uninformed masses trust it and get outraged.

 

Lol...Fauci was the one who kept trump's sorry ass afloat during the pandemic when the orange dotard was more interested in his stats than in leading the country.
The gop attacking Fauci and still spouting the big lie only proves how far they have stuck their collective heads up trump's ass.

 

NIH has admitted so bury your head but THEY ADMITTED IT

 

Nobody heard of Fauci until trump had him out there all the time and heading his task force

 

Didn't read the letter either did you? Somebody told you they admitted it? Right?

 

The propaganda out of you Leftists is ridiculous. Only a moron could believe that. He was the idiot that screwed up the treatments for AIDS for years making in much worse. He has been connected to the very top of the Establishment forever.

 

Wow and trump made him the pandemic point person? Sad!