At COVID Origins Storm, Fauci denies U.S.-funded controversial research in Wuhan

Anthony Fauci, Ann Schuhat, and Principal Die. CDC Director at the White House Briefing in April 2016.Photo: Reuters / Kevin Lamarck

Bangalore: Earlier this month New York Times And Science Reporter Nicholas Wade published 10,000 words Articles about Medium He argued that the possibility that the coronavirus was a human-operated pathogen and accidentally or otherwise escaped from Wuhan’s lab in China could not be unmanageably dismissed.

Shortly after it was published, Wade’s article was captured by both political critics and conspiracy theorists. There were also comments from scientists that further investigation into the origin of the virus was needed. At the same time, people studying Wade, including Anthony Fauci, argued against the article, stating that Wade was wrong in many of his facts.

In his article, Wade quoted the work and comments of molecular biologist Richard Ebright and virologist David Baltimore, among others. His main discussion focused on the furin cleavage site. This is the part of the virus that helps a human molecule called furin cut off two parts of the virus, the latter attaching to cells. Wade argued that the properties of the cut site suggest controlled manipulation rather than natural evolution.

He argued that other studies could be used to create a circumstantial case where the virus was born in the laboratory rather than in the wild. He also claimed that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) funded the Wuhan Institute of Vessel Function Acquisition (GoF) research. Fauci leads NIAID. GoF refers to manipulating viruses to add features that have not evolved. This is, on the surface, to understand how viruses affect humans.

At a Senate hearing on May 10, Kentucky Senators Rand Paul and Forch interrupted each other in a conversation about the origin of the virus. Paul first claimed that NIAID’s child organization, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), funded GoF research at the Wuhan Institute of Health. This is one of Wade’s article claims.by Hill, Fauci argued. Paul, in honor of you, you are completely, completely, and completely wrong. NIH has never funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s “gain-of-function research” and is still not funding it. “

NOW – Dr. Fauci: “NIH has never funded a function acquisition study at the Wuhan Institute of Veterinary Medicine.”pic.twitter.com/CiMA22ueGX

—Disclose.tv ? (@disclosetv) May 11, 2021

According to Fauci, NIH has told the EcoHealth Alliance “a non-profit organization focused on research aimed at preventing pandemics.”Source), I handed a part of it to the Wuhan Institute of Vase, but it is not for GoF research. Hill “Fauci, NIH funded a project at the Wuhan Institute of Veterinary Medicine, not for” gain-of-function “research on artificial superviruses, but for investigating bat viruses that could infect humans in the future. Said that.

Wade also criticized Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, in two ways. First, it didn’t disclose conflicts of interest after gathering a group of experts early in the pandemic to claim that the virus didn’t come from any laboratory. The conflict was that Dazak funded a job at the Wuhan Institute. Second, Wade argued that neither Dazak nor anyone else could know the origin of the virus very early in the pandemic (February 2020).

Christian Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute, and his colleagues Research letter To Nature The natural evolution of the virus in March 2020. Wade wrote that the Andersen Group’s conclusions were “based on only two definitive speculations.”

roof Called Wade’s work was “biased, dishonest, and terribly wrong,” and Wade speculated that he was “paid” to write it.Dazak Also quote a The Wall Street Journal Articles citing statements issued by NIAID (Paywall):

“The study by the NIH-funded EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. was for a project aimed at characterizing the function of newly discovered bat spelomers and naturally occurring pathogens at the molecular level. Molecular characterization examines the function of the organism at the molecular level, in this case viruses and pesplomers, without affecting the environment, development or physiological state of the organism. NIAID funds the acquisition research conducted at WIV. I have never offered. “

When the newspaper asked for the correct answer to the question, NIAID added: “WIV is a Chinese institution and assumes that it has multiple sources of funding. It is impossible for us to recognize or explain all of their activities.”

Andersen also published the technology Twitter thread With the aim of refuting Wade’s allegations, he states: “The SARS-CoV-2 furin cut site is back in the news, this time due to a quote by Nobel laureate David Baltimore. This site is not a” smoking gun “but” of natural origin. ” It’s not a powerful challenge to an idea. ” It’s exactly the opposite. “

The devil is certainly in detail. I won’t touch on many, many, and many issues with the work, but Nick’s article states that the only concrete argument raised to support lab leaks is the “mysterious FCS.” Worth pointing out. And that’s wrong.

-Christian G. Andersen (@K_G_Andersen) May 10, 2021

Wade also wrote that the new coronavirus is the only coronavirus known to have a furin cleavage site with a particular genetic code that he said was abnormal.Andersen Counterargument: “No wonder there is a” first example “of a virus using FCS. The viruses sampled so far provide only a small portion of all the viruses that circulate in the wild.Fragment – ​​CTCCTCGGCGGG etc.1 – Always come and go. “

Andersen Also insisted If the encoding was abnormal, it would have disappeared when the virus replicated and mutated, leaving later strains with a more “normal” encoding.he AddedAfter a more technical post, “The first point in Baltimore-the FCS found in SARS-CoV-2 is somehow unusual-is simply wrong. FCS is found in many different coronaviruses.” And the fingerprint in question is that it is “seen in other coronaviruses.”

Other experts Wire science Corresponding in the process of its reportage states that there is no conclusive evidence of a debate about the origin of the new coronavirus. Scientists are conducting more research, sequencing more samples of the virus from different parts of the world, and terrestrial levels in areas hosting animal populations where the virus may have circulated first. You need to do research.

But the last part is China’s attempt Control or block access to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Hubei hospitals each turn. A Team of investigators Hubei Province, led by WHO, including Dazak, visited Hubei Province earlier this year. According to a report they released after the trip, the virus was likely to have occurred naturally rather than in the laboratory, and the team continued to investigate and added that it could return to China in the future.

by Hill“The White House believed that China was” opaque “when it published its findings on the origin of COVID-19, and said WHO’s investigations were severely restricted. ” Before, New York Times He also reported that WHO may have given China too many concessions and treated it in return.So Wire science report:

Newspapers accessed internal documents, interviewed more than 50 public health authorities, scientists and diplomats, and were enthusiastic about “losing authority” WHO “winning access and coordination” from China. However, it showed that neither was achieved. The document also shows that China was able to draw concessions from WHO, allowing the government to delay important research and avoiding “potentially embarrassing” reviews of its early response.

At the Senate hearing, Fauci repeated: “I have no explanation of what the Chinese did and I totally agree with further investigation into what happened in China. But again, NIH and NIAID are at the Wuhan Institute of Veterans Affairs. We are not categorically funding the function acquisition research conducted in. “