US Institute of Health Admits to Funding Gain of Function Research in Wuhan, China.

in #covid1910 months ago

As has been apparent since early 2020, the US government has funded research intended to create deadly viruses, based on bat Coronaviruses, at labs in Wuhan, China. Now this has been verified by a National Institute of Health representative - essentially meaning that Anthony Fauci lied to Congress and the world numerous times.

Letters made public between the NIH and a US politician reveal that, despite claims made that the viruses that (were ADMITTED) to have come out of the research were too distant from SARS CoV2 to have been directly related to SARS CoV2, the fact remains that the work did/does produce more dangerous variants of the viruses than existed prior to the work being carried out. This is the exact definition of the 'gain of function' research that has been made illegal and which those involved are using every kind of mental gymnastics possible to distance themselves from.

The letters try to claim that the research that was done under a 2018 grant could not be 'gain of function' in a legal sense because the viruses had not been shown to infect humans. However, this is clearly nonsensical in light of the fact that the whole point of the research was allegedly to try to find virus formats that would be a threat to humans and to develop defences against them. It would hardly be a surprise if such a virus did turn out to be transmitted to humans and arguably this would have formed a significant part of the entire point of the work.

The letter also highlights that Ecohealth Alliance failed to meet the terms of safety defined by the grant and that the NIH had given them 5 days to produce the safety documentation that had 'fallen through the cracks'.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been held up as a shining beacon of scientific excellence and expertise in virology as he headed up the US response to COVID19. However, since the very beginning there has also been a counter narrative, that he is in fact underqualified and misleading the population down unproductive pathways. The inventor of the PCR process that has been used to amplify genetic material in order to 'test' for COVID19 called Fauci a fraud and openly accused him of being incompetent. As we can see from the following photo, Fauci has a long history of being surrounded by many names who have been exposed in numerous ways as being involved in extremely dubious organisations and ideologies:

image.png

Following work from numerous Professors, researchers and other experts, it is now more fully come to light that Fauci has been lying all along about the research work carried out in Wuhan, China to deliberately engineer new forms of coronaviruses that are specifically more dangerous to humans - using bats! As I reported as far back as March 2020 ("Coronavirus Is a Bioweapon" - Says US Bioweapon Lawmaker. + Danish Law Allows Forced Vaccinations!), the research work carried out at the behest of US and global interest in China constitutes 'gain of function' research which meets the legal definition of illegal Bioweapons research.

Despite this being pointed out by Professor Francis Boyle at the time (author of the US and international legislation on Bioweapons, no less), very few people heard about it because the mainstream and silicon valley has long censored him any completely.

This latest confirmation from an NIH via a letter to James Comer in the house of representatives, from the Deputy Director of the NIH, Lawrence Tabak, is another nail in the coffin of Fauci's career and should result in a push for criminal charges.

image.png

image.png

Source: Richard EBright on Twitter

As Yahoo News points out, Dr. Richard Ebright, a highly respected professor of chemical biology, has been on Fauci's case with the illegal research carried out by Eco Health Alliance for a long while:

Dr. Richard Ebright, biosafety expert and professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, had previously rebutted Fauci’s claim that the NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology [WIV]” as “demonstrably false.”

Ebright told National Review that the NIH-financed work at the WIV “epitomizes” the definition of gain-of-function research, which deals with “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (PPP)” or those pathogens “resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen.”

source: Yahoo News

Ebright continues to post regular tweets updating the world on the situation:

All of this comes in addition to the extensive legal case that has been running against Fauci and others in relation to their actions throughout COVID19 - which allege extremely serious deceptions against the population. See more in my previous article: COVID19: Anthony Fauci & US Dept of Health Accused of Massive Fraud & Major Criminality in Epic US Court Filing..

Despite this having been covered already to a limited degree by mainstream media (See my previous article here: Fauci Funded Development of COVID19 in Wuhan - Evidence Presented on Mainstream Media News), there continues to be a shield of protection around Fauci which may now begin to crumble in a major way.

It would appear that perhaps we are finally seeing Senator Rand Paul's relentless public pursuit of Fauci, in the face of extensive ridicule and criticism from vacuous commentators, paying off. As I reported in yet another recent article, Rand Paul has this to say about Fauci "Fauci & Team Are Denying Science In Order To Force The Population Into Submission"..

Even More Shocking


Despite the coverage that this has all received, perhaps the most damning evidence continues to be denied and omitted from mainstream coverage. As you can see in this recent article, a Freedom of Information Request has exposed that the US government issued another large grant to Eco Health Alliance in 2020, after COVID19 was well known. They did this specifically to fund further 'gain of function' research on SARS CoV2! The US government literally paid large amounts of money to have SARS CoV2 made MORE dangerous, in China - even while Fauci was denying that anything even remotely like this had ever happened:

COVID19: US Gov Issued Multi Million $ Grants in 2020 To Create New SARS CoV2 Strains Via Dangerous Bat Research in China!

While we do not yet have cast iron proof that the trigger events that led up to SARS CoV2 going viral globally involved the US funded research by Ecohealth Alliance, it would take an extraordinary degree of naivety or denial to overlook the probability that this research was involved in some way. Numerous of the researchers at the lab appear to have gone missing, probably executed by Chinese state authorities, a great deal of scientific documentation has been hidden by China and great lengths have been gone to to prevent a proper international investigation.

Perhaps the main witnesses to this remain the government agents in the US and operatives from Ecohealth Alliance, many of whome are naturalised US citizens. We may yet see, as legal cases progress, that more and more of these people face legal cross examination and more.



Wishing you well,
Ura Soul






Read My User Guide for Hive Here


Vote For Me As A Hive Witness!

Click the big black button below:

ura soul witness vote for hive


View My Witness Application Here

View Some of My Witness Related Posts

Note: Witnesses are the computer servers that run the Hive Blockchain.

Without witnesses there is no Hive blockchain or DApps such as PeakD and 3Speak... You can really help Hive by making your witness votes count!

I am founder of an ethical Digital Marketing Agency called @crucialweb. We help our clients to grow and innovate online and offer discounts for decentralised projects. Get in touch if you'd like to work with us.

The NFT Symposium
The NFT Symposium is a community space where NFT creators, artists, traders, enthusiasts & visionaries rub virtual shoulders, share ideas, start projects, grow together & learn.

Get paid to mine your imagination for the benefit of the entire NFT world:
NFTSymposium.io.
Sort:  

Letters made public between the NIH and a US politician reveal that, despite claims made that the viruses that (were ADMITTED) to have come out of the research were too distant from SARS CoV2 to have been directly related to SARS CoV2, the fact remains that the work did/does produce more dangerous variants of the viruses than existed prior to the work being carried out. This is the exact definition of the 'gain of function' research that has been made illegal and which those involved are using every kind of mental gymnastics possible to distance themselves from.

Your claim above (which is just a repeat of the tweeted claim) is factually false. If you create a new virus and it turns out unexpectedly to be more dangerous than the original one, it does not mean you are doing "gain of function" research. It just means that the result was you created a more transmissible virus. Under your expansive definition, any research that modifies a virus is potentially gain-of-function research that would be illegal. The letter is clear on the point that the behavior of the resulting virus in this case was not intended/expected.

You also persist in the false claim made by Ebright that it was a case of working with an “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (PPP)” when the definition of such viruses is limited to human transmissible viruses. You can bitch all you want about experimentation with viruses and argue that we should just leave them alone entirely, but you can't change a pre-defined scientific term just to suit your narrative, then use that as a claim that the NIH is violating its own rules.

If you create a new virus and it turns out unexpectedly to be more dangerous than the original one, it does not mean you are doing "gain of function" research

Gain of function research is research to create synthetically engineered version of viruses that are more dangerous than the ones that were used initially. While it can be argued that the intention was not to create weapons, the reality is that there is minimal to no practical value in this work unless the new viruses are in some way more dangerous. It may be that they are only more dangerous in that they are new and there is no immunity against them, but they are still more dangerous as a result. The only argument put forward for this work is that it enables new strategies to be developed 'in case' such viruses emerge outside of a lab setting. Therefore, again, there really is no possible motive for the work unless more dangerous viruses are going to be produced.

It just means that the result was you created a more transmissible virus.

No, it can also mean that the virus that you engineered has new traits which are more dangerous as well as transmissible.

Under your expansive definition, any research that modifies a virus is potentially gain-of-function research that would be illegal.

Not really, they were specifically trying to create viruses that pose a threat, specifically for that reason.

The author of the world and US bioweapons legislation, Professor Francis Boyle, himself has looked at all of the public documents on this and stated that this work constitutes Gain of function. How are you going to get someone more relevant to comment on this?

The letter is clear on the point that the behavior of the resulting virus in this case was not intended/expected.

Many statements have been made to that effect, yes, do you really think anyone currently working in a connected position is going to say anything different when their career and so much is on the line? Of course not.

the definition of such viruses is limited to human transmissible viruses.

As I understand it, the purpose of the work was partially to 'discover' human transmissible viruses - hence it was/is done in biosafety 3/4 labs.

I wonder why people are defensive of Fauci, if not for cognitive dissonance to the fact they are vaccinated and the results we are posting about intimidate them into a defensive state of fear based status quo, submission of their critical thinking skills.

I think because he represents the expertise of 'the system' that they depend on, plus that there are people who are so 'anti vaccine', but who do no real research and so make many false claims which the mainstream then weaponises and mixes in with their own false claims.. All this leads people to become militantly turned against critics of the system and therefore also, by proxy, heavily for the system's agents. I imagine the Nazi scientists were hailed as heroes in Germany at the time too.

The author of the world and US bioweapons legislation, Professor Francis Boyle, himself has looked at all of the public documents on this and stated that this work constitutes Gain of function.

Never heard of him, but have now:
https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/francis-boyle-ali-khamenei-meet-the-superspreaders-behind-top-covid-19-conspiracy-theories-287648-2021-02-15

Francis Boyle
Who he is: A Harvard trained law professor at the University of Illinois, Boyle drafted a 1989 law banning biological weapons and has advised the nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Palestinian Authority.
Boyle has no academic degree in virology or biology but is a longstanding critic of research on pathogens. He has claimed Israeli intelligence was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; that SARS, the swine flu and Ebola have been genetically modified; and that West Nile virus and Lyme disease escaped from a U.S. biowarfare lab. He has also claimed that Microsoft founder Bill Gates "was involved" in the spread of Zika.

You always find the quality sources.

I have found a total of zero substantiated pieces of evidence to back up a case against his ideas. In any case, he has had a long career and gotten involved in research into many controversies - it's unlikely that someone who has done this will say nothing that any single person will disagree with. That being said, I have looked into a lot of the topics he has covered before (without knowing who he was/is) and I agree with a lot of his conclusions. I haven't personally looked into the Zika virus at all, but I have looked into Ebola's origins and Lynton Bionetics was heavily implicated.

The website 'Wikispooks' typically shreds the reputation of most controversial people, but in his case it says virtually nothing that is critical (from what I read, which was not 100% of it):

Francis Anthony Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law.[1] Professor Boyle was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia and Herzegovina at the World Court. In the early 1990s, Boyle represented Colonel Gaddafi at the World Court in a successful legal case which restrained the United States and Britain from taking military action against Libya over spurious allegations that Gaddafi was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing.[2]

source: https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Francis_Boyle

You are right that he is not a virologist or immunologist, but how many of them would know the ins and outs of the legalities of bioweapons development? Probably not many, whereas he literally wrote the main law on the subject. The topic here is the legality of biological processes in the context of bioweapon development and he is absolutely a world expert on the topic.

You are right that he is not a virologist or immunologist, but how many of them would know the ins and outs of the legalities of bioweapons development? Probably not many, whereas he literally wrote the main law on the subject.

I think that lawyers are typically very poorly suited to the task of writing laws and they frequently write bad laws, especially when it comes to science. And especially when they introduce their own uninformed bias about the science into the process.

The link backs up my original "guess" that the thought process driving this entire argument is that we should entirely avoid precautionary research into pathogens and instead just wait for them to occur and kill us (or just hope they never occur). That's why I referred to an overly expansive definition of gain-of-function. I can understand the fear that drives this mindset, but I don't agree with it.

I'm not surprised that you agree with a lot of his conclusions. But I feel it is worth sharing those conclusions with others, so that they can see the mindset of the person in question, as many people will not agree with his conclusions. The reasoning is simple: it may not be unreasonable to believe in one "conspiracy theory" that you've researched well. But the more improbable events a person believes, and with less affirmative evidence, the less trustworthy that person's assessment should become.

I think that lawyers are typically very poorly suited to the task of writing laws and they frequently write bad laws, especially when it comes to science. And especially when they introduce their own uninformed bias about the science into the process.

Which particular biases in the international low on bioweapons are you referring to?

The link backs up my original "guess" that the thought process driving this entire argument is that we should entirely avoid precautionary research into pathogens and instead just wait for them to occur and kill us (or just hope they never occur).

Many virologists have warned about this practice for years publicly:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/virus-experiments-risk-global-pandemic

It is well established that the labs involved 'leak' viruses fairly regularly. This work is a huge disaster waiting to happen, always has been and probably always will be. If you are going to risk the future of humanity on your own fear of what 'might' happen, to the extent that you actually make it happen, then the deaths involved are on your hands and the rest of the world needs to know your intent.

it may not be unreasonable to believe in one "conspiracy theory" that you've researched well. But the more improbable events a person believes, and with less affirmative evidence, the less trustworthy that person's assessment should become.

Whether or not such research constitutes 'gain of function' is purely a legal and scientific question, it has nothing inherently to do with conspiracy or theory.

Whether or not such research constitutes 'gain of function' is purely a legal and scientific question, it has nothing inherently to do with conspiracy or theory.

Yes, the question is a factual one, but the judgment of the people involved in such a determination of fact will be weighed based on their judgment on other issues. You in fact made an authority argument for this individual originally, and my response is an attack on his authority based on his past opinions.

In your case, since you agree with many of his other opinions, you're going to find his judgment to likely be sound. Others, like me, will likely disagree with that view, because he appears to be prone to believe in too many conspiracies we don't believe to be true.

Yes, the question is a factual one, but the judgment of the people involved in such a determination of fact will be weighed based on their judgment on other issues

In my case I only look at the definition of the term 'gain of function' and whether or not it can be logically applied to the situation.

You in fact made an authority argument for this individual originally,

I never intend to claim that something is true simply because an 'authority' figure says so, I just point to them so that people can listen to them and consider why they are saying what they are saying. I personally don't have experience of developing or regulating bioweapons, but having listened to Professor Boyle and several others, without hearing any coherent reasoning in opposition to their position, I conclude that I agree with their logic.

and my response is an attack on his authority based on his past opinions.

Fair enough, but I think it's more useful to stick to the logic of the actual issue at hand. The more outspoken someone is, the more chance that they will have made a mistake and can be picked up on it - that doesn't mean that anything else they have said is automatically incorrect. We all make mistakes. That being said, I am not aware of anything in particular that he has said that has been disproven 100%.

In your case, since you agree with many of his other opinions, you're going to find his judgment to likely be sound. Others, like me, will likely disagree with that view, because he appears to be prone to believe in too many conspiracies we don't believe to be true.

I actually advocate for the complete ending of judgement since it is an unreliable way to arrive at truth. Judgements always deny some aspect of reality. I aim instead to discern truth and that involves taking in a wide variety of sources, as wide as possible, in fact.

When it comes to me mentioning Francis Boyle, it was mainly to highlight that someone who is world famous, in certain circles, for expertise in this field, decided that the research is gain of function. His job for a while was to literally write the definitions of such things. That doesn't mean he is the ultimate expert on it, but it definitely means that he is highly relevant. I actually don't know of anyone else with such relevant qualification who has commented on it. If you can point me to bioweapons experts who disagree with him I will definitely check them out.

"I've never heard of him because I've done no research"
...quick Google search for article backing up my per-determined opinion...
"Debunked!

Also, your "source" is a copy and pasted article of an article from February 2021 from ABC News. Quality sourcing. Your article from Businesstoday.in doesn't even site the original article and was posted today.

What I found was not pre-determined opinion, otherwise I would not have bothered to look it up to start with. @ural-soul 's original argument about the guy's expertise sounded like it might have some strength to it, so I decided to look him up and the link is what I found.

Also, your "source" is a copy and pasted article of...

Does that really matter to you when pondering the issue? It doesn't to me. Articles are routinely copy/pasted on the web. I don't feel compelled to trace down the original one unless I suspect there are alterations.

The only thing interesting would be a source that contradicts the information. I note you don't post any such link. To his favor, ura-soul does discuss the relevant points, unlike you, which leaves open the room of actual debate on the subject.

I linked to the article yours copy and pasted from. On my other post I literally linked to the NIH webpage twice. Once showing the definition there, and once showing it has been changed. You went over his sources for not be reliable, when yours was a 2nd hand article copied from an original article from 8 months ago.

I've responded to this with my other comment, but since you actually bring up this point twice, you apparently really do think there is some significance to this. Do you disbelieve all reporters because they are only reporting on a story rather than being the actors involved? Or are you trying to make some plagiarism argument? I really don't understand your point.

A copy of information does not make it less reliable. Period. If you want to argue this point, I'd love to hear how you go about it, because your new theory on information reliability would break the internet as we know it.

Now, if a source is known to promote suspicious information, that will make it unreliable, to anyone who believes the previously reported information is suspicious. Is this clear enough a distinction between my attack on his source and your attack on mine, or do I need to go over this point further?

"As recently as Oct. 19, the NIH defined “gain-of-function” experiments as “a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent.” The NIH noted that “This research poses biosafety and biosecurity risks,” and warned that “these risks must be carefully managed. ”

image.png

image.png
Source

Why did the NIH change it's definition on Oct. 19th?

The "gain-of-function" definition is just deleted.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/research-involving-potential-pandemic-pathogens

I'm sure a quick Google search will give you a "debunking" story you can parrot.

Yes, when I share a link, it is parroting. When you share a link, it is research. Check your bias at the door.

As to why the definition is being edited, I hope we can all agree it is because of political pressure.
Until the pandemic came along, only a few career virologists spent much time on this subject, defining these terms. Not to put to fine a point on it, but Trump's administration thought the subject was of such low importance that they actually dismantled the pandemic response team.

But now it is a political hot potato and the scientists are pretty much powerless against political forces who will fight endlessly over it to score political points. Lost in this entire discussion is that it says nothing about the origin of SARS-COV-2, which was really the raison d'etre for this entire boondoggle.

This discussion wasn't about the origin of Cov-19. His post was about NIH and Gain-of-Fuction research. There has been discussion about the origins of Cov-19. This was not a post about that topic.

Your source was literally a parrot. Repeating another article. My sources were the actual NIH website. Twice. One from web archives showing the original definition, the other was the new definition. The change was clearly politically motivated as you said previously.

My point of posting this comment was to point out that your seemingly unwavering trust in this government institution in the face of evidence they lied is misplaced. Also, because, unlike Ur Soul and the other Covid critics on this site, you downvote people's research you disagree with while you sit on a nice wallet of $$.

And please don't talk about bias. Your bias in your name.

This discussion wasn't about the origin of Cov-19. His post was about NIH and Gain-of-Fuction research. There has been discussion about the origins of Cov-19. This was not a post about that topic.

I'm not referring to the post. I'm referring to the origin of the whole "gain of function" discussion in the news. I thought that would be obvious.

Your source was literally a parrot. My sources were the actual NIH website.

Point of order, you said I was parroting, not the source link. So "literally a parrot" is non-responsive to my argument.

And again, who cares it was a link to a copy/paste article? Do you think the info somehow degrades when it gets repeated? If so, I have some bad news for you, since everything you're reading here, was first composed somewhere else, then repeated. Is it somehow worse if the repetition is done by a human rather than a computer (although in the case of that site, it likely was a computer that did that repeating too).

And I wasn't attacking your source, that would be silly. I'm just pointing out that we're doing the same thing, posting links to someone else's info.

My point of posting this comment was to point out that your seemingly unwavering trust in this government institution in the face of evidence they lied is misplaced.

"Seemingly" is the operative word here. Your opinion in this case is based on far too little information and an outsized confidence in the correctness of your own stance. Based on what I have read from you so far, I suspect we are too far apart in the way we view the world for us to understand each other well, except observationally, and with little insight into the internal workings of our respective minds.

Also, because, unlike Ur Soul and the other Covid critics on this site, you downvote people's research you disagree with while you sit on a nice wallet of $$.

We have differing ideas of what constitutes scientific research. I haven't seen any real research here, it is reposting of information and a thin synthesis of source material. In particular, the level of rigor in verification is abysmal, compared to real research.

As for my downvote, I view it as countering near blind upvotes from two accounts (also nice wallets) that appear to be the same entity, based on their voting pattern.

And please don't talk about bias. Your bias in your name.

The name was just a joke, don't take it too seriously.

Fire faucci!!!! He is a liar..

They can do gymnastics all they want after we hang then on a noose.