NIH changes story, confirms it funded Wuhan experiment that made bat coronavirus more dangerous

Just amazing watching this nonsense. 

Let's be real clear, Vic.    Are you (with this seed) attempting to argue that the NIH knowingly and directly funded gain-of-function research that could produce the SARS-CoV-2 virus?

Your seed points out what we have known for a very long time:  EcoHealth funded research at Wuhan.   EcoHealth violated provisions of their grant from NIH.   NIH, at worst, is guilty of insufficient oversight on EcoHealth's activities.

To wit, we are still in the situation where we have no evidence that NIH directly and knowingly violated their own policies and funded gain-of-function research that could produce the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

And even in the seed we see:

NIH determined the proposed research didn't meet the standard for "enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential" because it wasn't shown these bat coronaviruses could infect humans . But "out of an abundance of caution" it required EcoHealth to "immediately" report "a one log increase in growth" if it happened, which would trigger a secondary review of the research by NIH . EcoHealth didn't do that , Tabak wrote, and it now has five days to turn over "any and all unpublished data" from the research to NIH.

Just applying a little bit of common sense, if NIH was directly funding gain-of-function research that could produce the SARS-CoV-2 virus then why would they impose an "abundance of caution" even though they concluded the research did not meet the standard for "enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential"?

It is remarkable to observe people so desperate to be "right" that they will take any whiff and spin it into conclusive proof.   Confirmation bias to the extreme.

Look Vic, if the NIH directly and knowingly funded gain-of-function research that could have produced the SARS-CoV-2 virus then they were wrong and should be held accountable.   If that hypothetical research actually did produce SARS-CoV-2 then they would be appropriately in deep trouble.

EcoHealth is not the NIH ... it is a grantee of NIH research funds.   EcoHealth / Wuhan have not been shown to produce SARS-CoV-2.    The evidence suggests that investigation is warranted.   It does not, however, conclude that the NIH directly and knowingly funded gain-of-function research that could produce the SARS-CoV-2.

By the way, Francis Collins was the chief scientist for the landmark sequencing of the human genome.   One of the greatest genetic achievements of this century.   He has had a stellar career and enjoys substantial credibility.

Let's be real clear, Vic. 

Yes, Let's!

Are you (with this seed) attempting to argue that the NIH knowingly and directly funded gain-of-function research that could produce the SARS-CoV-2 virus?

Your seed points out what we have known for a very long time:  EcoHealth funded research at Wuhan.   EcoHealth violated provisions of their grant from NIH.   NIH, at worst, is guilty of insufficient oversight on EcoHealth's activities.

To wit, we are still in the situation where we have no evidence that NIH directly and knowingly violated their own policies and funded gain-of-function research that could produce the SARS-CoV-2 virus.


I am not just saying, I'm offering proof that NIH and it's leaders lied about funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Lab.


NIH, at worst, is guilty of insufficient oversight on EcoHealth's activities.

No, TiG. They are guilty of two things:  First they committed purjury (if that means anything before congress). Second, they were reckless in trusting the Chinese to contain the virus that would emerge from experimentation. So, let me state the obvious: Dr Fauci & company knows what that means. They will be held partly responsible for the death of almost 7 million people. 

That is the reason for the coverup.

I am not just saying, I'm offering proof that NIH and it's leaders lied about funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Lab.

What proof?   Show it.   You have claims and do not even have evidence to support your claims .. much less proof.

First they committed purjury (if that means anything before congress).

A claim.   Back it up.

Second, they were reckless in trusting the Chinese to contain the virus that would emerge from experimentation.

As I noted, so far the NIH can be held responsible for improper oversight of EcoHealth. 

So, let me state the obvious: Dr Fauci & company knows what that means. They will be help partly responsible for the death of almost 7 million people. 

You need to show that the NIH directly and knowingly funded gain-of-function research that could lead to SARS-CoV-2.

You need to show that the Wuhan research did in fact create SARS-CoV-2.

So far you make claims.   Claims are not evidence and certainly not facts.   Without support, claims are no better than bullshit.

What proof?

My God!

I'm just glad you weren't on the jury in Leopold and Loeb case.

A feeble response.

What amazes me is this obsessive drive to try to discredit the NIH and Fauci.   I have challenged you in very specific terms to back up your claims and all I get back from you is bullshit.

Get your facts straight and make a case.    Show with clear evidence that the NIH knowingly and directly funded gain-of-function research that could produce the SARS-CoV-2 virus.   Then show that is DID do so.

Follow the evidence to where it leads rather than attempt to piece together claims to match what you wish to be true.

All you have done is deny the evidence or you claim that they required evil intent. They were not supposed to be funding gain-of-function research. They lied about it. Now they have been caught. Fauci can't redifine "gain-of-function" and he can no longer hide behind Biden.

What evidence?  

Where is the evidence that the NIH knowingly and directly funded gain-of-function research that could lead to SARS-CoV-2?

Cease with your facades and back up your claims.

You continue to be in deep denial about Fauci. Why?

You offer a false claim entirely devoid of supporting detail and ask me to explain it.   Find an argument.   Present it.   Then maybe I will respond.

WTF do you think they were doing in the Wuhan Lab? 

They were making diseases for gain of function research. Whether it was completely manufactured; or altering existing diseases; really doesn't matter. Gain of function was the purpose. Funny how everyone knew it except the 3 mighty mental midgets.

"Sorry, we didn't know we were funding the CCP to bring about a disease that could become a pandemic", doesn't cut it.

They lied; and are still lying.

[deleted]

WTF do you think they were doing in the Wuhan Lab? 

They could have been doing anything from gain-of-function on bats that have no means of causing SARS-CoV-2 to a deliberate weaponizing of SARS-CoV-2.

Follow the evidence.   When the trail stops, it is stupid to fill in the blanks from your imagination and call them 'facts'.

"Sorry, we didn't know we were funding the CCP to bring about a disease that could become a pandemic", doesn't cut it.

It is lack of oversight that NIH did not stop EcoHealth from funding an activity in Wuhan that violates the EcoHealth grant.   Lack of oversight is profoundly different from knowingly directly funding SARS-CoV-2 (which, just so you know, has not even been determined).

Funny how everyone knew it except the 3 mighty mental midgets.

Just amazing that people like you (and apparently JustJim who agrees with you) can be so partisan driven to make such a stupid fucking statement.   Calling Dr. Francis Collins a mental midget is surely up there in the most profoundly stupid statements made in this forum.

NIH, at worst, is guilty of insufficient oversight on EcoHealth's activities.

Indeed, and in my mind I should think that they would go as deep into what happened at WIV or EcoHealth's other subrecipients as they can go, including identifying specifically what funding violations had occurred, specifically what research was done, specifically what the results were and whether those results could have led to SARS Covid 2.  Seems like a reasonable course for a proper audit to take, especially given the circumstances and I should think a strong desire to fashion a plan to ensure it never happens again.

A 1-25-23 report at the NIH outlines the the insufficient oversight with respect to the NIH grant and the subrecipients to whom EcoHealth extended some of those funds, including the WIV.  The conclusion of this report is a bit disturbing in that it does not delve into the most important question which is was the "enhanced growth" that went unreported/improperly reported considered to be in line with the definition of "gain of function" type research, and could it have lead to the SARS Covid-2 virus?

Regarding the finding that an experiment exhibited "enhanced growth," our audit did not assess scientific results for any of the experiments or make any determination regarding the accuracy of NIH's or EcoHealth's interpretations of the Years 4 and 5 research results. Our audit found that NIH's own evaluation of the Year 5 progress report concluded that the research was of a type that should have been reported immediately to NIH .

If I'm in charge I want to know what the fuck that means, and I should think that it would be important to fully round out this "audit", yes? Why the cliff-hanger?  We don't want to wait 2 years for season two of this saga do we?  I know you can't answer these questions TiG but I sure as hell think someone at the NIH should, don't you?

My understanding is that the NIH is continuing to award grants to EcoHealth Alliance, so I suppose another question is, what have they done to improve the oversight of this recipient and sub-recipients with whom Eco-Health does business?

While looking into that last question I came across this interesting letter from the NIH to EcoHealth Alliance in July of 2020

It appears that funds were suspended at that time, and take a look at the bullet points listed after the bit that says:

Specifically, to address the NIH’s concerns, EcoHealth must provide the NIH with the following
information and materials, which must be complete and accurate:

1. Provide an aliquot of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus that WIV used to determine the viral
sequence.

2. Explain the apparent disappearance of Huang Yanling, a scientist / technician who
worked in the WIV lab but whose lab web presence has been deleted.

3. Provide the NIH with WIV’s responses to the 2018 U.S. Department of State cables
regarding safety concerns.

4. Disclose and explain out-of-ordinary restrictions on laboratory facilities, as suggested, for
example, by diminished cell-phone traffic in October 2019, and the evidence that there
may have been roadblocks surrounding the facility from October 14-19, 2019.

5. Explain why WIV failed to note that the RaTG13 virus, the bat-derived coronavirus in its
collection with the greatest similarity to SARS-CoV-2, was actually isolated from an
abandoned mine where three men died in 2012 with an illness remarkably similar to
COVID-19, and explain why this was not followed up.

6. Additionally, EcoHealth Alliance must arrange for WIV to submit to an outside
inspection team charged to review the lab facilities and lab records, with specific
attention to addressing the question of whether WIV staff had SARS-CoV-2 in their
possession prior to December 2019. The inspection team should be granted full access to
review the processes and safety of procedures of all of the WIV field work (including but
not limited to collection of animals and biospecimens in caves, abandoned man-made
underground cavities, or outdoor sites). The inspection team could be organized by
NIAID, or, if preferred, by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

7. Lastly, EcoHealth Alliance must ensure that all of its subawards are fully reported in the
Federal Subaward Reporting System:

Wouldn't it be nice to see what the response was to all of that?  Seems like something that might have been pertinent to the 2023 audit, yes?

It would be nice to see some reporting on actual work being done to get to the bottom of this rather than this constant partisan nonsense based almost exclusively on confirmation bias based on mere hints and opinions.

Thus far:

• EcoHealth violated NIH policies (and the rules of the grant)
• Wuhan got funding from EcoHealth
• Wuhan was engaged in seemingly unrelated gain-of-function research
• NIH failed to do proper oversight.

But the partisans (for whatever reason) spin this into:   Fauci (NIH) knowingly and directly funded gain-of-function research which produced the SARS-CoV-2 virus at Wuhan which plunged the planet into a pandemic.

The letter shows that "NIH — and specifically, Collins, Fauci, and Tabak — lied to Congress, lied to the press, and lied to the public," Richard Ebright, lab director at Rutgers University's Waskman Institute of Microbiology, tweeted Wednesday night when sharing the letter. "Knowingly. Willfully. Brazenly."

Says Ebright.   The letter does not correlate with his accusation.   NIH is not EcoHealth.  NIH did NOT authorize gain-of-function research at Wuhan that could produce SARS-CoV-2.  etc.   EcoHealth violated NIH policy and the rules of its grant.   NIH failed in oversight, the evidence does not show it directly, knowingly funded the development of SARS-CoV-2.   It gets old repeating the facts to people who simply ignore them.

But the partisans (for whatever reason) spin this into:   Fauci (NIH) knowingly and directly funded gain-of-function research which produced the SARS-CoV-2 virus at Wuhan which plunged the planet into a pandemic.

What goes purposefully left out of the partisan spin is most virologist still believe the best answer is the virus mutated in nature because that's what we've seen in all the other viruses from Ebola to Bird Flu to Monkey Pox.

Deduct all the virologists that Fauci hired at the NIH over the past 38 years.

Now tell us what the majority believe.

Deduct all the virologists that Fauci hired at the NIH over the past 38 years.

 You do know that all the virologist in the world don't work at the NIH, right?

the virus mutated in nature because that's what we've seen in all the other viruses from Ebola to Bird Flu to Monkey Pox.

Ah yes.  In IT circles that's the old "But this is how we've always done it" explanation.  

I'm wondering if you know that?

Ah yes.  In IT circles that's the old "But this is how we've always done it" explanation.  

We are talking possible vs probably vs conclusive vs jumping to political partisan conclusions.

Considering I ran my own IT business not that long ago I'm familiar with concept you state above. I also know one has nothing to do with the other. I'm fairly certain every virologist would concede its possible to have come from a lab leak, but possible isn't conclusive, nor is it based on years of experienced evidence (probable).

We most likely won't ever know for certain, nor does it really have any bearing on anything people really care about today, except political partisan hacks. The US and the world must be ready for any virus from any source at all times. Fuck, cows have Influenza D now.

And it's not just cows in Oklahoma but across the whole country, from west to east and north to south, Li says. "From California to Vermont, and North Dakota to Texas, cows are infected with this virus. They are the primary reservoir for the virus."

It is also possible that the virus mutated in nature and was brought into the lab (inadvertently) with other samples.

The possibilities range from complete accident to malicious intent.   We simply do not know how this virus originated but some will insist they know and will use every opinion that can be used for their confirmation bias.

I still wonder how this became a partisan issue.

I still wonder how this became a partisan issue.

Everything is partisan in the US today.

malicious intent. 

That's a new one!

What?   If someone/thing intentionally engineered SARS-CoV-2 as a weapon, that would be malicious intent.   Right?   That seems to be a decent extreme in the range of possibilities.  

You do not see that?

You do not see that?

But nobody has made that claim. Why would you even say such a thing?



As far as the origins and what followed, Dr Redfield most likely has it right:

But nobody has made that claim. Why would you even say such a thing?

Do you understand the concept of an extreme in a range of possibilities?   Stating an extreme is not the same as making a claim.   Hello?

As far as the origins and what followed, Dr Redfield most likely has it right:

Fauci has stated his opinion that the virus most likely emerged naturally in the wild; he has never stated that the lab leak is impossible.

This lab leak was most likely an accident.

If Wuhan is the source, the evidence certainly does imply this was an accident.

he has never stated that the lab leak is impossible.

Did I attribute that to him?

Yes that is how conspiracy theories work.  What might nip such theories in the bud would be a FULL NIH audit of its findings with respect to EcoHealth and its sub-recipients rather than one that omits any review of the actual science and leaves us hanging.  It would also be prudent, if they wish stop the spin, to be transparent and publish the EcoHealth response to the NIH’s letter of July 2020.  The letter does indicate that the NIH was aware of some irregularities and issues with how the EcoHealth grants were being used at the time of the outbreak and I think it warrants closer scrutiny in order to put to rest any conspiracies that will inevitably arise when important questions go unanswered and only the questions are made available to the public.

Given the time that has passed, I am not very hopeful that we will ever see such an audit.

While I agree that we should do what we can to get to the bottom of this (for the safety of the planet), my guess is that given the degree to which partisans leap to the extreme on every tidbit (and then invent on top of that), the NIH might be hesitant to stir the pot.

the NIH might be hesitant to stir the pot

Hmmmm.  A fear to get to or present/report the truth because it might be misinterpreted or twisted by ideologues?  Seems to be a common problem these days, and that's not good.

Not good but look at the extrapolation, invention and conspiratorial nonsense thus far.   If they are reserved, I can see why.

It is also possible that the virus mutated in nature and was brought into the lab (inadvertently) with other samples.

Sure - That was the crux of some of the questions in the NIH letter to EcoHealth on July 8, 2020.  So what were the answers to those questions?  Seems like an important issue to follow up on and insist on a straight answer.

I still wonder how this became a partisan issue.

Do you really?  What doesn't become a partisan issue anymore these days?

If they are reserved, I can see why.

Well maybe, but I'm not wired like that.  Give me the fucking truth, I don't really give a shit what the ideologues make or think of it.  And if it reflects poorly on the NIH or Fauci, then so be it.  To the NIH I'd say, Be honest, give and insist on straight answers  and don't ever be afraid to uncover and expose the truth, IMHO.  One can always combat the extrapolation, invention and conspiratorial nonsense with logic and reason as you have done here my friend, it needn't be feared it simply needs to be countered.

I agree that we should find the truth.   I was offering an explanation as to why NIH might be hesitant to stir the pot.

One can always combat the extrapolation, invention and conspiratorial nonsense with logic and reason ...

LOL.   Have you noticed how logic and reason are literally dismissed by some partisans?   ...    Blatantly obvious stuff is denied / deflected, etc.

For example, how can anyone NOT see that Trump was wrong to —especially as sitting PotUS— declare to the world that the USA electoral system was rigged and that the president-elect is illegitimate?    They would deny 1 + 1 = 2 if it had a partisan consequence.

Just amazing to behold, Freewill.

LOL.   Have you noticed how logic and reason are literally dismissed by some partisans?

Of course I have, by partisans of any stripe and not just here but everywhere in the media, congress, statehouses, its everywhere and isn’t going anywhere.  That is why all we can do is keep pushing to get to the truth and combat the partisan BS with logic and reason.  Who cares if some dismiss our efforts as long as we make our point and open as many eyes as we can? That is the purpose of a forum like this is it not?

I do not believe I suggested this forum (and others like it, and discourse in general) not seek the truth.    I am stating that facts and logic are irrelevant to far too many people.

I do not believe I suggested this forum (and others like it, and discourse in general) not seek the truth

I don't believe you suggested that either.

I am stating that facts and logic are irrelevant to far too many people.

Indeed.  And all we can do is to keep laying out the facts with logic and reason and hope to reach at least some of those people if we can.  For the others, there is nothing we can do about that other than to wade through them on the way to the truth.

The honor system is inherently flawed because it depends on people 

(who did not sign the grants) to honor the rules.

Twice as dumb when you trust competitors and allies like the Russians or Chinese

and expect them to not act like Americans....

The honor system is inherently flawed

Indeed.  And such an honor system has no place in critical research grant situations involving potentially dangerous research and materials.  Why was EcoHealth allowed to (or asked to as I have read in some sources) assign sub-recipients in the first place, particularly to a Chinese lab where safety controls were not up to par with American standards?  It was the perfect recipe for a lapse in oversight.  

Abuse of the grant system is more common than we would like to believe;

Small town Iowa police chief charged with lying to ATF to get 90 machine guns for department with 3 officers (msn.com)

All people simply cannot be trusted equally.

Waiting on Democrats to call for Collins, Fauci, and Tabak to be arrested and charged for obstruction and lying to Congress./S

Believe it or not, they'll tell you that they are still waiting for the facts to come in.

I believe it. 

No matter how many "facts" they are presented they will never believe it.

Big government protects their own. 

They sure do. For five years they have controlled the investigation of Hunter Biden.

Funny how you never have facts. 

Just accusations.

Come up with some original lines. Your current ones are worn completely out.

Is this the pot calling the kettle black?

[deleted]

Everyone take note.  NIH informed Congress that the laboratory gain-of-function methodology is an effect means of creating biological weapons.  We know that the Wuhan Institute was engaged in gain-of-function research and, now, we know that type of research is effective for developing biological weapons.  In a backhanded manner, the NIH has admitted to assisting EcoHealth in development of biological weapons.

Why shouldn't the Wuhan Institute be held accountable for engaging in research associated with development of biological weapons?  Why shouldn't gain-of-function research be completely banned?

Those are great questions.

Let us see if anyone has an answer?

Those are great questions.  Let us see if anyone has an answer?

The NIH bureaucracy has become so focused on avoiding blame and protecting its own people that gradually the story is coming out that gain-of-function methodology is quite capable of producing a SARS-CoV-2 virus.  The NIH admission that a more virulent virus was produced by accident should be ringing alarm bells.

No one has claimed that SARS-CoV-2 cannot be produced by gain-of-function laboratory methodology.  The NIH defense has compared natural evolution in the wild with methods of manipulating virus genetics that have nothing to do with gain-of-function methodology.  

The NIH bureaucracy has become so focused on avoiding blame and protecting its own people that gradually the story is coming out that gain-of-function methodology is quite capable of producing a SARS-CoV-2 virus. 

I've noticed. And there seems to be many willing to believe whatever they say.


No one has claimed that SARS-CoV-2 cannot be produced by gain-of-function laboratory methodology.  The NIH defense has compared natural evolution in the wild with methods of manipulating virus genetics that have nothing to do with gain-of-function methodology.  

Good points.

I'll trust the highly esteemed and educated and trustworthy Dr. Fauci

[Deleted]

Gain of function experiments in 1937 led to the cure for Yellow Fever.

Gain of function can occur in an organism in either nature or the laboratory. Some lab examples include creating more salt- and drought-resistant plants or modifying disease vectors to produce mosquitoes that are resistant to transmitting dengue fever . Gain of function can also be useful for environmental reasons, such as modifying E. coli so that it can convert plastic waste into a valuable commodity . What is 'gain-of-function' and why does it matter in the search for SARS-CoV-2's origins? (phys.org)

"gain of function" is like a firearm, it's not the problem; people ARE the problem,