Rand Paul Unleashes On Dr. Fauci, Immediately Turns Him Into a Triggered Hysterical Mess
By: Kyle Becker
Don’t FAUCI me! What a complete and total fraud. Way to go Senator Paul in exposing this fraudulent hack.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Rand Paul Unleashes On Dr. Fauci, Immediately Turns Him Into a Triggered Hysterical Mess
by Kyle Becker 21 minutes agoupdated 14 minutes ago
Senator Rand Paul once again lit into Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Senate hearing on Tuesday.
The Kentucky senator warned the doctor about the criminal implications of lying to Congress before confronting him on evidence that NIAID had indeed funded ‘gain of function’ research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, which some believe to be the source of the COVID-19 outbreak.
“Dr. Fauci, as you’re aware, it is a crime to lie to Congress,” Senator Paul said. “Section 1001 of the U.S. Criminal Code creates a felony and a five-year penalty for lying to Congress.”
“On your last trip to our committee on May 11th, you stated that the NIH has not ever and has not now funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Paul continued. “And yet, gain of function research was done entirely in the Wuhan Institute by Dr. Shi and was funded by the NIH.”
“I’d like to ask unanimous consent, insert into the record that Wuhan virology paper entitled ‘Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses’,” he continued. “Please deliver a copy of the journal article to Dr. Fauci. In this paper, Dr. Shi credits the NIH and lists the actual number of the grant that she was given by the NIH. In this paper, she took two bat Coronavirus genes, spike genes, and combined them with SARS-related backbone to create new viruses that are not found in nature. These lab-created viruses were then to show to replicate in humans.”
“These experiments combined genetic information from different coronaviruses that infect animals, but not humans, to create novel artificial viruses able to infect human cells,” Paul added. “Viruses that in nature only infect animals were manipulated in the Wuhan lab to gain the function of infecting humans. This research fits the definition of the research that the NIH said was subject to the pause in 2014-2017, a pause in funding on gain of function.”
“But the NIH failed to recognize this defines it away, and it never came under any scrutiny,” he continued. “Doctor Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist from Rutgers described this research in Wuhan as ‘The Wuhan lab used NIH funding to construct novel, chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses able to infect human cells and laboratory animals. This is high-risk research that creates new potential pandemic pathogens, potential pandemic pathogens that exist only in the lab, not in nature. This research matches — these are Dr. Ebright’s words — this research matches, indeed epitomizes, the definition of gain of function research done entirely in Wuhan, for which there was supposed to be a federal pause. Dr. Fauci, knowing that it’s a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain of function research in Wuhan?” he asked.
“Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress and I do not retract that statement,” Fauci denied. “This paper that you’re referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function. What was — ”
“So you — ” Paul interjected.
“Let me finish!” Fauci burst.
“So you take an animal virus and you increase the transmissibility to humans, you’re saying that’s not gain of function?” Paul asked.
“Yeah, that is correct,” Fauci continued. “And Senator Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially. You do not know what you are talking about. Okay, you get one person — ”
“The NIH,” Paul began.
“Can I answer?” Fauci cut in.
“This is your definition that you guys wrote,” Paul said. “It says that scientific research that increases the transmissibility among mammals is gain of function. They took animal viruses that only occur in animals and they increase their transmissibility to humans. How you can say that is not gain of function?”
“It is not,” Fauci claimed.
“It’s a dance, and you’re dancing around this, because you’re trying to obscure responsibility for 4 million people dying around the world from a pandemic,” Paul said.
“I have to — well, now you’re getting into something,” Fauci replied. “If the point that you are making is that the — the grant that was funded as a sub-award from EcoHealth to Wuhan created SARS-CoV-2, that’s where you are getting — let me finish.”
“We don’t know if it did come from the lab, but all the evidence is pointing that it came from the lab and there will be responsibility for those who funded the lab, including yourself,” Paul continued.
“I totally resent…” Fauci objected.
“This committee will allow the witness to respond,” an unknown member of the body said.
“I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating, senator, because if you look at the viruses that were used in the experiments that were given in the annual reports that were published in the literature, it is molecularly impossible,” Fauci claimed.
“No one’s saying those viruses caused it,” Paul clarified. “No one is alleging that those viruses caused the pandemic. What we’re alleging is the gain of function research was going on in that lab and NIH funded it.”
“That is not…” Fauci denied.
“You can’t get away from it,” Paul said. “It meets your definition and you are obfuscating the truth.”
“I’m not obfuscating truth. You are the one,” Fauci said before someone remarked that Senator Paul’s time had expired. Fauci was given time to respond.
“Let me just finish,” Fauci said. “I want everyone to understand that if you look at those viruses — and that’s judged by qualified virologist, an evolutionary biologist — those viruses are molecularly impossible to result in SARS-CoV-2.”
“No one is saying they are,” Paul said. “No one is saying those viruses caused the pandemic. We’re saying they are gain-of-function viruses because they are animal viruses that became more transmissible in humans and you funded it. And you can’t admit the truth.”
“And you are implying that what we did was responsible for the deaths of individual…” Fauci responded.
“It could have beenn,” Paul said. “It could have been.”
“I totally resent that,” Fauci erupted. “And if anybody is lying here, senator, it is you!”
Tags
Who is online
104 visitors
Another misleading headline by the "journalist" known as Kyle Rucker, the muck raker.
But the content is true.
Fauci is fucked.
Everything Kyle Becker publishes is a kernel of truth within a biased opinion or conspiracy theory.
Fauci is the longest employed civilian in the government. He's 80 years old and making $434,000 a year.
I'd like to be fucked like that.
MIT biologist Kevin Esvelt reviewed this paper that was published with financial assistance from Dr. Fauci’s NIH/NIAID and concluded “certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function”
We shall see tomorrow.
[DELETED]
Right now Fauci is trying to redefine the term "Gain of Function."
Dr. Fauci is a great American with a lifetime of outstanding public service.
Rand Paul can barely put two words together.
The neo-fascist attacks on Dr. Fauci are pathetic, and the neo-fascists attacking Dr. Fauci are low-life scumbags and a disgrace.
Who most likely singned off on funding the risky research at Wuhan.
To think that Obama was actually right about something!
Especially about his grandmother.
Obama tried to stop this dangerous kind of research in 2014. Fauci and others most likely funded research that got unleashed and caused this deadly pandemic.
That's what it's all about.
Based on the evidence thus far, the trail of money from Fauci would be as follows:
There is no evidence (and denial by Dr. Fauci and Dr. Fauci's boss: Dr. Francis Collins) that the NIH had any intent to fund gain-of-function research at Wuhan. Certainly neither of these two knowingly funneled money to produce COVID-19.
There is not even evidence that gain-of-function research conducted at Wuhan resulted in COVID-19.
Trying to put Fauci up as the fall guy for the worldwide pandemic is predictable by those who want to blame and criticize Fauci for everything related to the pandemic.
Disgusting, dishonest partisanship.
Far better to follow the evidence to where it leads and not try to spin evidence (and in some cases just make shit up) to support what one wants to believe.
Oh, be real. All politicians and parties lie.
TiG, is the question whether or not the NIH knew that Daszak was conducting this research? Or, is it whether or not Daszak was conducting this research? Because there is no question as to whether or not Daszak was receiving the funding.
I'm not an expert on the issue, but it appears they are engineering viruses to see if they infect humans. You can find multiple instances of Daszak discussing this from as early as 2015. NIH funding began in 2014, and continued to 2019. Whether or not the research resulted in the instant pandemic, I find it had to believe that the NIH, Fauci, and Collins were unaware that the 6 years of funding were going to research aimed at engineering viruses capable of infecting humans, as that is what they were reporting they were doing, and Daszak was not secretive about the fact.
What is your take on this simple exchange?
The accusation is that Dr. Fauci knowingly funded gain-of-function research which resulted in the production of the COVID-19 virus in Wuhan labs.
This is just an ongoing partisan campaign that has taken place since the outbreak of the pandemic with Fauci as the target. For whatever reason, the R partisans continually try to present everything that Fauci does with the most negative spin.
Both Fauci and Collins have stated that EcoHealth received $3.7 million over six years. Both have also stated that they did not approve any gain-of-function research on coronaviruses to increase transmissibility or lethality:
Here is a specific quote from Dr. Collins on this point:
I have wondered about that too. It is strange language. My take is that I would like Fauci to explain himself because those words, on their own, are self-contradictory. But Paul, as is usual, continually cut Fauci off.
An addendum . I have been observing Dr. Collins for years now and hold him in high regard. They guy is extremely competent and is respected both professionally and personally. That is, he is, best I can tell, a very decent, honorable, competent and learned man.
I need very persuasive evidence that Dr. Collins is, in direct contradiction of the life he has led, now lying about this serious matter.
Yeah, I would have liked to have seen Paul not cut him off. But, Fauci was left with the final word, and I think he could have addressed the simple question. Troubling to me, when faced with a direct question, he answers a question not asked.
Again, not my area of expertise (assuming I have one), but the above excerpt from a 2013 report seemingly shows that they successfully engineered a virus by replacing the natural spike protein with SARS-CoV S, which allowed it to use the ACE2 receptor. Below is their list of acknowledgments.
Link to R01AI079231, Daszak is a contributor.
Then there is this
The science is out of my league, and Collins may be a good and decent man. But, the number of studies that have been funded by the NIH and that appear to be using gain of function research at Wuhan are numerous. I can't say there may not be benefit to such tactics, and I'm not arguing against it. The problem I have is that you can get on the NIH website, look at the awards, find the reports based on such projects, yet Collins and Fauci are claiming that they didn't know this type of research was ongoing? Hell, they have been funding this at least since 2003. Surely one of them looked at some of the reports.
Consider the possibility that words such as 'neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported “gain-of-function” research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.' have a very specific meaning to scientists working in this field. It would be professional suicide for Dr. Collins to make such a public statement if it can be easily shown to be a lie. Common sense alone suggests that we should be careful to not leap to lay interpretations.
Scientists working with deadly pathogens typically take extraordinary measures to ensure they do not cause harm. That does not mean they cannot screw up, but it does mean they do indeed work on inert substances (or portions of a virus) without creating a new lab-variant of an active virus. For example:
You interpret this to mean that the scientists engineered a new active SARS-COV virus variant that could bind to human ACE2. Is that what they actually did? Or did they work at the protein level (a portion of the virus) or use other safe methods to conduct their research? I do not know, I am not a molecular biologist and I know that I could not possibly learn enough about this field to argue on pure scientific terms.
The question thus is this:
Did the NIH or NIAID approve a grant for work to engage in "gain of function" research (need a very specific definition of what constitutes this research) on coronaviruses that would produce an active coronovirus virus that has increased transmissibility or lethality for humans?
Dr. Collins and Dr. Fauci are on public record saying they did not do so. This is top-line visibility right now. The quote I gave you from Dr. Collins is from the NIH website where he is speaking to the world and stating his position.
If he is lying then how easy would it be for a knowledgeable scientist to show this? Not with rough 'appearance' as you or I might use given our lay understanding of the science, but with scientific details based on the actual methods employed by the researchers and the likelihood that they literally created an active coronavirus with increased transmissibility / lethality.
Without a deep background in this level of research one must use other means to try to find the truth. What I would like to see, if true, is an understandable counter to Dr. Collins' statement that shows him to be lying. That is, to show that he (and Fauci) knowingly funded research that they knew could produce an active COVID-19 virus through gain-of-function.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA [deep breath] HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That's the NIH's definition. Nothing in there about increased lethality, simply new or enhanced activity. Of course, I have little doubt that you have read the entire passage that follows the NIH's definition, and its explanation that some GOF research carries more risks, and needs strict oversight. Daszak's research was producing chimeric viruses, and they were testing viral replication of the chimeric viruses. That much is plainly stated in the reports. I think a lay person can see that engineering a virus to test a theory that it will be infectious to humans, where it was otherwise not, meets the definition.
In the end, I'd like to see the same things you'd like to see.
Agreed. Note Dr. Collins' qualifications in the quote I supplied. There is also nothing in there about methods to experiment with viruses to explore potential lethality and transmissibility that do not produce an active virus that has those properties.
I suspect the answer to this question is 'yes': are there safe methods for modifying viruses to test properties without producing an active virus capable of effecting those properties? That is, can one actually test transmissibility, for example, without producing an active virus that has that property?
No doubt you understand my position, but just to summarize, in lieu of a deep understanding of the methods and practices and the safety precautions and, indeed, what they actually produce in the lab while doing these sorts of experiments, I am going to assume Dr. Collins is dead on accurate and truthful. His reputation and my observing him for years gives me confidence in him. If he is lying, which would truly blow my mind, then we should have a clear explanation, by reputable sources, as to why his statement is a lie.
Short of that, I fear we can too easily get a wrong reading by viewing the forest and not the trees.