7 Questions Anthony Fauci Has Not Answered on Email Scandal, Role in Funding Coronavirus Research Abroad MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images WENDELL HUSEBØ3 Jun 20215 4:50 Dr. Anthony Fauci has not answered the following questions amid his released emails and role in funding coronavirus research abroad. 1. How is “gain of function” defined? Fauci has not simply defined gain of function. When, or if, Fauci defines the term, which he wrote about in 2011 as “risky,” will Fauci’s definition agree with Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) definition, who simply defined “gain of function” Thursday as taking “an animal virus and you make it into a super-virus that infects humans.” 2. If nearly $600,000 was not spent on gain of function, on what exactly was the money spent? Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) asked Wednesday if $600,000 of tax payer money “wasn’t spent on gain of function, then what was it spent on and why can’t Dr. Fauci answer the question?” Fauci so far has avoided giving a direct answer, only stating he “cannot guarantee” a Chinese “grantee has not lied” about where the funding was directed, “because you never know.” 3. Why does Fauci write in an email, “urgent, we must discuss this gain of function research” while denying funding gain of function research? Fauci said May 25 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded the Wuhan lab, but he still denies gain of function research support in relation to the origin of the flu. Sen. Paul also questioned Fauci’s seemingly contradictory email about funding coronavirus research, saying: He [Fauci] gets an email or notification of what’s going on in Wuhan, and he immediately sends something to his assistant an email saying we must meet immediately, read this article and in the subject line, in the article it says “gain of function research in Wuhan.” Well he still denies, to this day, he was funding it. 4. Why did Fauci not know if he directed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund coronavirus research “abroad?” Emails show Fauci scrambled February 1, 2020, to determine if the United States had any potential role in funding coronavirus research “abroad.” National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Principal Deputy Director Hugh Auchincloss replied to an email from Fauci, writing it is “essential” the two discuss a scientific paper about “experiments… performed before the gain of function pause.” “The paper you sent me says the experiments were performed before the gain of function pause but have since been reviewed and approved by NIH,” Auchincloss answered Fauci. “Not sure what that means since Emily is sure that no Coronavirus work has gone through the P3 framework. She will try to determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad.” 5. Why did Fauci sign-off on funding research in a Communist China lab, knowing their truthfulness is dubious? Fauci has not answered why he supports funding research in a nation that is America’s global opposition. “Have you ever had a grantee lie to you?” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asked about Chinese funding grantees. “I cannot guarantee that a grantee has not lied to us, because you never know,” Fauci responded. 6. Does Fauci excuse himself from a conflict of interest: Advocating for funding a lab that presumably leaked a highly contagious virus? Fauci has not been asked if he has a conflict of interest for defending funding he authorized. Sen. Paul explained the question differently, saying, “So the conflict of interest is this: if this virus came from the lab, there’s a certain amount of, at least, moral culpability to the people who are advocating for this. Dr. Fauci, to this day, says he still trusts the Chinese scientists.” 7. Why did Fauci recommended canceling religious “services” March 5, 2020, but approved campaign rallies and cruise ships for the healthy four days later? Emails show Dr. Anthony Fauci recommended canceling religious “services” March 5, 2020, but approved campaign rallies and cruise ships for the healthy four days later. “You should counsel the rabbi to cancel the services this [redacted]. Are the local/city/state health departments [redacted] doing any contract tracing?” Fauci said to Joshua Gordon, the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), who asked if services should be canceled. But on March 9, 2020, Fauci said it was perfectly safe for healthy Americans to take a cruise and to hold campaign rallies. https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...dal-role-funding-coronavirus-research-abroad/
It's over, shill. Anthony Fauci's Shockingly Obtuse E-Mails to Michael Gerson By Jeffrey Tucker June 03, 2021 NBC The email dump of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s correspondence is a treasure trove of insight. Don’t rely on the major media to explain what’s in it, however. Reporters hardly have time to dig through thousands of pages, so they become echo chambers of what others are saying. I’ve gone through most, not all, but I’m most interested in the material from March 2020. Here is where we find out what Fauci was thinking before the American people were greeted with lockdown shock and awe. I draw your attention to an exchange from March 2, 2020. Hysteria was already in the air. The New York Times was fueling it. Other media joined in. We were two weeks away from lockdowns. There was a tremendous amount of public speculation that quarantines were coming but not a single event had yet been cancelled. The cancellation of South by Southwest by the Austin, Texas, mayor was still a week away. Media were attempting to coordinate messaging with the federal government (and you thought we had a free press!). Michael Gerson from the Washington Post sent Fauci a column to make sure that Fauci approved. Gerson asked Fauci the following: “Is the overall strategy of social distancing just to keep the percentage of Americans who get the disease low until a vaccine is available? This seems much harder to do in a free society. Does this mean closing schools? Public transport? Do states and localities make such decisions?” Fauci’s answer is surprising. No, he said, that’s not the point. The point is to suppress the disease so that it goes away. Not one word about “flatten the curve” to preserve hospital capacity. Fauci even says that with enough forced human separation, the virus can be made to “decline and stop on its own without a vaccine.” Again, it wasn’t just Donald Trump who believed the virus would vanish. Fauci held this view too, provided that he was put in charge of all human association from sea to shining sea. Here is the actual text from Fauci, major parts of which ended up word-for-word in Gerson’s column that week. “Social distancing is not really geared to wait for a vaccine,” wrote Fauci. “The major point is to prevent easy spread of infections in schools (closing them), crowded events such as theaters, stadiums (cancel events), work places (do teleworking where possible…. The goal of social distancing is to prevent a single person who is infected to readily spread to several others, which is facilitated by close contact in crowds. Close proximity of people will keep the R0 higher than 1 and even as high as 2 to 3. If we can get the R0 to less than 1, the epidemic will gradually decline and stop on its own without a vaccine.” There are several reasons why this is shocking. 1) Gerson was allowing Fauci to write his column, 2) the plan to lock down was already in the works two weeks before they came about, 3) there is no mention of preserving hospital capacity; that propaganda line was yet to be invented to justify lockdowns, 4) Fauci didn’t really believe that we needed a vaccine to make the pandemic end, and 5) Fauci is thoroughly messed up in his understanding of the R0 (or R Naught, which is a fancy way of saying the infection rate). We need to unpack point number 5 really to understand. The R Naught is not as complicated as it sounds. If you get infected and pass the virus on to one person, and him to one person, and that person to another person, and this pattern persists throughout society, you have an infection rate of 1. If you pass it on to two people, and on down the line, you have an R Naught of 2. And so on it goes. If it falls below one and finally to 0, the pandemic qualifies as endemic. The infection rate is always conjectural, not really empirical. It’s impossible to discern without universalized, random, and thoroughly accurate testing, tracing, and tracking. Those conditions have never been met in any country or any pandemic. So what seems to be a measure of an existing reality is really true only in theory, not realistically discernible in the midst of a pandemic. At best, it is an estimate. The problem gets worse. (By the way, I’m grateful to the many scientists and epidemiologists who have explained this to me.) If the R Naught signifies anything it is an ex post description of conditions on the ground. It is not a causative agent; it is merely descriptive. For example, if I tell you that most drivers now have their windshield wipers on, you would be rational to conclude it is raining. The measure of wipers is an indicator, not a force that makes rain come or go. What Fauci has done here (and this is consistent with what many of these disease models have done) is mixed up a cause with an effect. Fauci’s idea is to drive the infection rate to 0. This would suggest that the virus cannot find a host (not that viruses are volitional). The R Naught in principle reveals what a virus is doing but it does not actually cause the virus to behave in a certain way. It’s the equivalent of ordering drivers to turn on wipers to make the rain come down, or forcing people to put away umbrellas to make it stop. Think of this in economic terms. When you have inflation, prices are being pushed up due to increases in the money supply (holding all other factors constant). The cause is the money supply increases; the effect is the rise in prices. If you are a fool – and many government economists are – you might try to control the inflation rate by stopping the price increases with, for example, price controls. To be sure, many “experts” have tried to do this but it has never worked. It does not work because it is an attempt to game the effect without dealing with the cause. So it is with the infection rate. It is not possible simply to push down the infection rate through a far-flung theory that viruses only spread in crowds. Even if you could do so, the virus is still there, and the instant people get together again (if the theory of spread holds) the infection rate will shoot up again. Again, the economic analogy holds: repeal the price control and prices shoot up simply because you have failed to deal with the underlying problem of excessive money printing. I must say that I have suspected that this confusion was present all along. I thought so last summer when I kept hearing about the need to reduce the infection rate via shutdowns, lockdowns, closures, and so on. The belief that this is effective is completely confused. Even if it worked for a time, the effects are not sticky because there is not enough immunity in the population (“herd immunity”) to make the virus less threatening. No pandemic of a new virus like SARS-CoV-2 has ever found its endemic equilibrium without sufficient immunity in the population gained either through natural infection or vaccines. Such a virus cannot be tricked by powerful scientists bearing computer models. The Fauci theory of “social distancing” as it stood on March 2, 2020, was literally an impossibility, despite his air of certitude. It would absolutely have required mandatory human separation either forever or until there was a vaccine. Forget two weeks to flatten the curve; it was always intended to be more draconian. As Gerson himself suggests, this surely cannot work in a “free society.” Of course we know that such words do not register with Fauci: “I don’t look at this as a liberty thing,” he told Rep. Jim Jordan a full year later. It’s long past time for the pandemic central planners to level with the American people about what they were attempting and why. They did not explain then, and they have yet to explain to this day. It’s too bad we have to find out just how harebrained their theory was via an email dump. But such is the way public policy is in America today: powerful fanatics trying out untested and far-flung theories on a public that is rightly and increasingly skeptical that any of these people have a clue.
Dr. Anthony Fauci says publicly released email about lab leak is being misconstrued https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/03/health/anthony-fauci-emails/index.html In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Dr. Anthony Fauci said that an email he received last year from an executive at the US-based EcoHealth Alliance has been misconstrued and offered a hint of regret about a February 2020 email downplaying the need to wear a mask. Earlier this week, news outlets including CNN, BuzzFeed News and The Washington Post obtained thousands of emails Fauci sent and received since the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases became a household name early last year. In one email sent to Fauci last April, an executive at EcoHealth Alliance, the global nonprofit that helped fund some research at China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, thanked Fauci for publicly stating that scientific evidence supports a natural origin for the coronavirus and not a lab release. (The origins of the virus remain unclear.) "There are some of your critics who say this shows you have too cozy of a relationship with the people behind the Wuhan lab research," CNN's John Berman said to Fauci on New Day. "What do you say to that?" "That's nonsense," Fauci responded. "I don't even see how they get that from that email." Fauci then emphasized that the email was sent to him, and he noted the origins of the coronavirus are still uncertain. "I have always said, and will say today to you, John, that I still believe the most likely origin is from an animal species to a human, but I keep an absolutely open mind that if there may be other origins of that, there may be another reason, it could have been a lab leak," Fauci told Berman. "I believe if you look historically, what happens in the animal-human interface, that in fact the more likelihood is that you're dealing with a jump of species. But I keep an open mind all the time. And that's the reason why I have been public that we should continue to look for the origin. "You can misconstrue it however you want -- that email was from a person to me saying 'thank you' for whatever it is he thought I said, and I said that I think the most likely origin is a jumping of species. I still do think it is, at the same time as I'm keeping an open mind that it might be a lab leak." In another email sent to Fauci on April 16, NIH director Francis Collins wrote "conspiracy theory gains momentum," a dismissive reference to the lab-leak hypothesis. But much of the email is redacted, and Fauci said he did not remember its substance. "They only took about 10,000 emails from me, of course I remember. I remember all 10,000 of them. Give me a break," he said. "I don't remember what's in that redacted, but the idea I think is quite farfetched that the Chinese deliberately engineered something so that they could kill themselves as well as other people. I think that's a bit far out, John." Berman also brought up a February 5, 2020, email Fauci sent to Sylvia Burwell, former secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, in which he did not recommend wearing a mask since she was traveling to a low-risk location. The email was sent at a time before coronavirus was declared a pandemic and before the CDC advised the public to wear masks for protection. "A lot has transpired since then. If you had to go back and do it all over again, would you tell her something different? Do you regret that?" Berman asked Fauci. "Let's get real here -- if you look at scientific information as it accumulates, what is going on in January and February, what you know as a fact, as data, guides what you tell people and your policies. If March, April, May occur, you accumulate a lot more information and you modify and adjust your opinion and your recommendation based on the current science and current data," Fauci told Berman. "So of course, if we knew back then that a substantial amount of transmission was asymptomatic people. If we knew that the data show that masks outside of a hospital setting actually do work when we didn't know it then. If we realize all of those things back then, of course," he said. "You're asking a question, 'Would you do something different if you know what you know now?' Of course people would have done that. That's so obvious."
I see. Mr. Fauxci is just a misunderstood guy. Maybe when he got his orders and script to follow that there was some poor translation from Chinese to English. Yeh. Let's have compassion for him. I mean at a salary of $485,000 per year you can only expect so much from him and he is new on the job. The first thirty years are always the roughest so we should expect some communication errors.
When a person qualifies his answer like this... You know he is a smart seasoned rat liar... "I think is quite farfetched that the Chinese deliberately engineered something so that they could kill themselves as well as other people. I think that's a bit far out, John." No... liar... the questions are: a. were they (China or the UNC guy or Discak or other Fauci friends) doing gain of function research? evidence so far... seems to be some evidence that xi was engaged in gain of function research Diszak (spelling said as much) It also looks like XI authored a paper where Bat Viruses were manipulated into being about to infect humans (via leak?) b. did it leak out? evidence https://www.breitbart.com/science/2...is-claim-of-coronavirus-evolving-from-nature/ BILL HEMMER: You believe this was a lab leak. Why? ADM. BRETT GIROIR: I really became convinced of that with the W.H.O. report in March which showed definitely that there was no environmental source, there was no intermediary host, there was really nothing linking the virus to the natural world. But on the other side, the evidence was becoming compelling. Look, there is a laboratory five miles of the origin that was doing dangerous research on bat coronaviruses. Sometimes, the simplest explanation is that. We do have labs leaks. They’ve happened multiple times. SARS has leaked out of a laboratory, even caused secondary deaths. We know that in 1979, anthrax leaked out of a Soviet laboratory and killed 60 people. Lab leaks are not uncommon and I really think data like people getting ill in November from the laboratory, if that proves true, that coincides with exactly when this virus in China. The evidence is there. HEMMER: Why didn’t you say this a year ago? ADM. GIROIR: I did say it a year ago. I was very clear that the only thing we knew was that there were no obvious finger prints of this virus being engineered. I always kept open, and was always public about, that it could have been a lab leak. That was in distinction from Dr. Fauci, who argued very convincingly that this was something that evolved in nature. There was no data that evolved in nature and there’s still no data. c. why were you funding that lab in the first place if you can't guarantee they were not creating more deadly or more contagious corona viruses. evidence so far... NIH was funding the Wuhan lab... Fauci's best obfuscation is that he can't know if the scientists were pressured by China into lying about where the money was going. summary... Right now... Fauci better starting coming up with the truth or he should be prosecuted for genocide or reckless genocide and conspiracy to cover it up. Why would he support gain of Function research... which means in this case taking a virus in bats and making a deadlier and more contagious for humans? Fauci is a monster.... yeah they wanted to stay ahead of the virus... They stayed ahead by making it more deadly and introducing it to humans.
State Department staffers were warned against probing COVID origin: report State Department staffers were warned against investigating the origin of COVID-19 because it would “open a can of worms,” a former official revealed in a bombshell report Thursday. Thomas DiNanno, former acting assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance, also told Vanity Fair that the warning “smelled like a cover-up.” “I wasn’t going to be part of it,” he said. Vanity Fair cited a five-page Jan. 9 memo in which DiNanno outlined “apprehension and contempt” from State Department technical staff and a “complete lack of responses to briefings and presentations.” DiNanno’s memo also said that State Department staffers “warned” leaders in his bureau “not to pursue an investigation into the origin of COVID-19” because it would “‘open a can of worms’ if it continued,” according to Vanity Fair. A total of four ex-State Department officials described being warned against probing the “lab-leak” theory of the pandemic and repeatedly advised not to open up a “Pandora’s box,” the magazine said. In its nearly 12,000-word report, Vanity Fair said that about a dozen State Department employees from four bureaus met on Dec. 9 to discuss an upcoming trip to Wuhan, China, organized in part by the World Health Organization. A small group of officials in the department’s Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance bureau had reportedly obtained classified intelligence suggesting that three scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were sickened in fall 2019 while conducting “gain-of-function” experiments on coronavirus samples. As the group discussed what they could publicly reveal, Christopher Park, the director of the State Department’s Biological Policy Staff in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, told them not to say anything that could point to the American government’s own role in gain-of-function research, Vanity Fair said, citing documentation of the meeting. A source familiar with what happened said some of those present were “absolutely floored” that a government official could “make an argument that is so nakedly against transparency, in light of the unfolding catastrophe,” calling Park’s remarks “shocking and disturbing.” Park told Vanity Fair, “I am skeptical that people genuinely felt they were being discouraged from presenting facts.” Park also said he was merely suggesting that it would be “making an enormous and unjustifiable leap … to suggest that research of that kind [meant] that something untoward is going on.” Gain-of-function research can increase the infectiousness and virulence of viruses, and the US government under President Barack Obama in October 2014 ordered a “pause” on new funding for those sorts of experiments on influenza, MERS and SARS viruses, but a footnote exempted projects that were “urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security,” Vanity Fair said. In 2017, under President Donald Trump, the moratorium was lifted and replaced with a review system called P3CO — for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight — that left the review process shrouded in secrecy, according to the article. A longtime official at the National Institutes of Health, which funds the research, reportedly described P3CO as little more than window dressing. “If you ban gain-of-function research, you ban all of virology,” the official told Vanity Fair. “Ever since the moratorium, everyone’s gone wink-wink and just done gain-of-function research anyway.” Gain-of-function research is tied to the controversy over nearly $600,000 in taxpayer money that was given to the Wuhan Institute by the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance from a five-year, $3.4 million NIH grant. During testimony before a House Appropriations subcommittee last week, NIH Director Francis Collins testified that researchers at the Wuhan lab “were not approved by NIH for doing gain-of-function research.” But Collins added: “We are, of course, not aware of other sources of funds or other activities they might have undertaken outside of what our approved grant allowed.” Meanwhile, former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield also told Vanity Fair that he got death threats for publicly supporting the notion that the coronavirus escaped from a Chinese lab. Redfield said leading scientists — including some former friends — were among those who barraged him with angry emails following a March 26 appearance on CNN during which he endorsed the “lab-leak” theory. Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield said he got death threats for publicly supporting the notion that the coronavirus escaped from a Chinese lab. Reuters One email reportedly said that Redfield — a 20-year veteran of the US Army Medical Corps who co-founded the University of Maryland’s Institute of Human Virology — should “wither and die.” SEE ALSO Trump tears into Fauci after release of early COVID emails “I was threatened and ostracized because I proposed another hypothesis,” Redfield told Vanity Fair. “I expected it from politicians. I didn’t expect it from science.” During the CNN appearance, Redfield — who led the CDC amid the height of the pandemic — said, “I’m of the point of view that I still think the most likely etiology of this pathology in Wuhan was from a laboratory — escaped.” “Other people don’t believe that. That’s fine. Science will eventually figure it out,” he added. CNN later televised additional remarks from Redfield’s interview in which he said China was “not being transparent” about the origins of the virus. “I could use the word ‘cover-up,’ but I don’t know that so I’m not going to speculate that,” he said. https://nypost.com/2021/06/03/state-dept-staffers-were-warned-against-probing-covid-origin-report/
Anthony Fauci and the Wuhan Lab Emails add to the mystery over U.S. funds for risky research. By WALL STREET JOURNAL The Editorial Board June 3, 2021 6:35 pm ET Dr. Anthony Fauci answers questions during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing to discuss the on-going federal response to Covid-19 at the U.S. Capitol on May 11. PHOTO: GREG NASH - POOL VIA CNP/ZUMA PRESS Anthony Fauci’s email correspondence from the early days of the pandemic have ignited a spate of recriminations over masks and the doctor’s celebrity. But what really matters is that some of the emails raise more questions about the origin of Covid-19. As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Fauci cast doubt on the theory that Covid-19 came from a laboratory like the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). After ruling it out several times, he publicly said last month it is possible, as the hypothesis was getting a second look in media and academia. The emails, released after media freedom-of-information requests, show that Dr. Fauci followed debates about Covid-19’s origin from the beginning. In early 2020, the immunologist Kristian G. Andersen wrote to him that the virus had some “unusual features” hinting at manipulation in a lab setting. Mr. Andersen later published a paper rejecting the lab-leak theory for lack of evidence. And Dr. Fauci began sharing articles arguing in favor of a natural origin while giving advice to scientists writing about the issue. But conclusive proof of a zoonotic origin hasn’t emerged, and it’s reasonable to ask why Dr. Fauci was slow to accept the possibility of a lab leak. Of particular interest: From 2014-19, the National Institutes of Health sent $3.4 million to the WIV through the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance. “I just wanted to say a personal thankyou on behalf of our staff and collaborators, for publicly standing up and stating that the scientific evidence supports a natural origin,” EcoHealth Alliance chief Peter Daszak gushed to Dr. Fauci in a partly redacted April 2020 email. “Your comments are brave, and coming from your trusted voice, will help dispel the myths being spun around the virus’ origins.” ADVERTISEMENT The NIH money was spent on researching bat coronaviruses, and it’s likely the WIV conducted gain-of-function research to make them more deadly or infectious. In a February 2020 email, Dr. Fauci sent his deputy Hugh Auchincloss a paper about gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. “Read this paper,” he ordered. “You will have tasks today that must be done.” His deputy commented on the paper and said they would “try to determine if we have any distant ties to this work abroad.” Dr. Fauci has since said his outfit didn’t fund gain-of-function research; the EcoHealth Alliance funding was meant to go to collecting samples. But “I can’t guarantee everything that’s going on in the Wuhan lab, we can’t do that,” Dr. Fauci said Wednesday in an interview with NewsNation Now. Dr. Fauci also said this week that his emails “are really ripe to be taken out of context” and that “you don’t really have the full context.” That may be true. But it’s all the more reason to investigate the U.S. links to WIV and gain-of-function research. The issue relates to Covid’s origins but also to the future risks and benefits of such research. The current Congress doesn’t seem interested, but President Biden could help by establishing a fact-finding commission like the Robb-Silberman effort on intelligence failures before the Iraq war. This shouldn’t be a “Fire Fauci” partisan exercise. Understanding where the pandemic came from—and what officials knew and when they knew it—can teach valuable lessons and perhaps save lives