FAUCI DID SUPPORT AND FUND CREATING POTENTIAL BIO-WEAPONS IN CHINA

A rigorous documentation of the systemic corruption responsible for allowing China to enhance coronaviruses with U.S. funds

Of all the technology that U.S. has taught China, perhaps the deadliest is the genetic enhancement of flu viruses to increase their transmissibility, whether China may or may not have used this as a bioweapon. Even scarier, the man who supported this has been advising U.S. presidents.

This article doesn’t try to determine if the coronavirus causing COVID-19 was created naturally or artificially, it only documents the extent to which Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has been fervently supporting, funding and outsourcing the enhancement of flu viruses in ways that can cause pandemics. We’ll document how strongly Fauci defended these studies against hundreds of opposing voices warning him of their threat to mankind. This will show that even if Fauci’s actions may not have caused the present pandemic, they may very well cause others.

The chain of events documented includes turning a blind eye to the signed consensus of hundreds of opposing scientists, devising workarounds to bypass a moratorium, non-transparent review and approval procedures, the unjust firing of 11 opposing biosecurity advisors, and doing nothing about the lax security measures at the Wuhan lab, even after being explicitly warned by U.S. science diplomats that this can cause a pandemic.

On 04/28/2020, Newsweek published an article titled “Dr. Fauci backed controversial Wuhan Lab with millions of U.S. dollars for risky coronavirus research.” On April 3rd, this article was still coming up on Google’s first search results page for the term “Fauci.” Fauci denied that the coronavirus could have escaped from the Wuhan lab, but the majority of U.S. intelligence officers disagree, believing the coronavirus might have escaped from the lab even though it may have evolved naturally and been released accidentally. But “the results are inconclusive,” U.S. Defense Secretary told USA News. On May 4th, President Trump announced that the White House “will soon release ‘conclusive’ evidence showing how the coronavirus originally leaked out of China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

No other pathogenic organism as scary

According to the Newsweek article accusing Fauci, his National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) “funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.” The meaning of ‘gain-of-function research’ (GOFR) is explained in a 1916 paper titled “Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis.” This paper states:

“Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens.”

The paper goes on to document the biosafety concerns of gain-of-function research, explicitly stating that “a devastating pandemic could potentially result from a laboratory accident involving an especially dangerous pathogen created via GOFR.”

The same paper also states the supposed benefits of GOFR, after which it explains:

Critics questioned the validity of claims about such benefits and argued that the studies might facilitate creation of biological weapons agents that could kill millions, or possibly even billions, of people.”

Such gain-of-function research raised a big outcry in 2011, when two papers were published announcing having successfully enhanced the transmissibility of a certain bird flu virus strain. This flu virus strain was originally only transmissible between birds, but had been genetically modified to also become “easily transmissible between ferrets, the animals that most closely mimic the human response to flu,” Science reports. The magazine adds:

Scientists believe it’s likely that the pathogen, if it emerged in nature or were released, would trigger an influenza pandemic, quite possibly with many millions of deaths.”

The same Science article quotes Paul Keim, microbial geneticist and chair of U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, stating “I can’t think of another pathogenic organism that is as scary as this one.

Fauci kept defending the studies, ignoring fervent pandemic warnings

And what did Fauci think about enhancing the capabilities of viruses in ways that can kill billions?

Amid the outcry and protests to ban all such gain-of-function research (GOFR), Fauci publicly defended their continuation. He told Scientific American:

“I think the benefit that will come out of the Fouchier paper [one of the two GOFR papers] in stimulating thoughts and ways to better understand transmissibility and adaptability and pathogenesis, in my mind, far outweigh the risk of nefarious use of this information.”

Fauci further touted the benefits that could result from gain-of-function studies in a Washington Post op-ed titled “A Flu Virus Risk Worth Taking.”

But Fauci’s voice was temporarily drowned by his opposition and scientists agreed to put a voluntary moratorium (temporary suspension) on gain-of-function studies in January 2012. Fauci told NPR that he’d be participating in a New York conference where he’d try to persuade the scientific community to lift this moratorium. NPR reports:

At a recent press briefing, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which funded the controversial [GOFR] experiments, said that he intended to go to the meeting and ‘discuss in some detail with the group the kinds of approaches we can have to try and expedite as quickly as possible the lifting of the moratorium.'”

Fauci kept trying to get this moratorium lifted, told The Guardian on March 2012 that “There cannot be any impediment to science that will ultimately be good to the general public.

The influential voices of Fauci and his allies did manage to rise above their opposition and the risky studies were resumed in January 2013. But his fervent opposition kept fighting back, forming an alliance called the Cambridge Working Group and publishing numerous papers and articles spelling out the grave dangers of GOFR. All these efforts persuaded the Obama Administration to impose another moratorium on GOF studies starting in October 2014.

Accidents involving dangerous pathogens “occur on average twice a week”

The decision to impose the second moratorium in 2014 was partly due to three accidents that had occurred in the handling of the enhanced flu viruses. Scientific American explains in its article titled “Bio-Unsafety Level 3: Could the Next Lab Accident Result in a Pandemic?”

“In 1977 a flu virus swept the world in an event that became known as the Russian flu. It was caused by a strain of flu that, later genetic tests showed, looked remarkably like those that had circulated in 1950. The belief is that the virus escaped from a laboratory or was used in a vaccine project that went awry. … The CDC, which oversees laboratory safety in the U.S., reported in 2011 that lab errors involving select agents—the most dangerous pathogens—occur on average twice a week in U.S. labs.”

The decision to enact the 2014 moratorium was mainly influenced by a congressional hearing about the recurring laboratory accidents, discussing the fear that “a lab accident could allow such manmade flu strains to escape.” Presented to the congressional hearing was a consensus statement signed by several hundred scientists making up the Cambridge Working Group alliance against gain-of-function research. The consensus statement this alliance presented to the hearing includes:

“Laboratory creation of highly transmissible, novel strains of dangerous viruses, especially but not limited to influenza, poses substantially increased risks. An accidental infection in such a setting could trigger outbreaks that would be difficult or impossible to control. Historically, new strains of influenza, once they establish transmission in the human population, have infected a quarter or more of the world’s population within two years.”

All of the above demonstrates how well the U.S. was warned and was made aware of the deadly dangers of gain-of-function research.

No one can claim Fauci couldn’t have known the risks and consequences.

Firing the opposing biosecurity advisors, lifting moratorium in secrecy, non-transparent approval procedures

Instead of heeding the warnings and addressing the concerns about the lab accidents, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) fired the 11 members of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) who had signed the consensus statement presented to the congressional hearing. Science reports in a July 2014 article:

The 11 members learned they were being dismissed Sunday evening in an e-mail from the board’s executive director, Mary Groesch, who works at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), NSABB’s overseer. ”

The same Science article states that a NIH representative told that these 11 members were dismissed “so that fresh and diverse perspectives can be brought to bear on the committee’s deliberations.”

The firing of the 11 members of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity who opposed GOFR took place right before the Board was expected to meet after 2 years of inactivity, to come up with advice for the White House on if and how the moratorium could be lifted, reports Nature. Their October 2014 article states:

The White House says that it will wait for recommendations from the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) and the National Research Council before deciding whether and how to lift the ban. The groups are expected to finish their work within a year.”

The White house never heard the advice of those who opposed the GOFR and the “fresh and diverse perspectives” of the new advisory board members did cause the moratorium to be lifted in December 2017.

The advice and guidelines of the mysteriously re-staffed US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity were never disclosed to the public. Secrecy and non-transparency surrounded the lifting of the moratorium, according to The Washington Post, describing the situation in their article titled The U.S. is funding dangerous experiments it doesn’t want you to know about. This article voices the concerns of two influential scientists opposing GOFR studies:

In the past year, the U.S. Government quietly greenlighted funding … transmission-enhancing experiments on the bird flu virus as they were originally proposed before the moratorium. Amazingly, despite the potential public-health consequences of such work, neither the approval nor the deliberations or judgments that supported it were announced publicly. The government confirmed them only when a reporter learned about them through non-official channels.

This lack of transparency is unacceptable. Making decisions to approve potentially dangerous research in secret betrays the government’s responsibility to inform and involve the public when approving endeavors, whether scientific or otherwise, that could put health and lives at risk.”

The same Washington Post article states:

No description of who reviewed these proposals has been provided. It is not stated what evidence was considered, how competing claims were evaluated or whether there were potential conflicts of interest.

This secrecy means we don’t know how these requirements were applied, if at all, to the experiments now funded by the government. …

We have serious doubts about whether these experiments should be conducted at all. We also suspect that few members of the public would find compelling the rationale that the best way to fight the flu is to create the most contagious, lethal virus possible in a lab. But with deliberations kept behind closed doors, none of us will have the opportunity to understand how the government arrived at these decisions or to judge the rigor and integrity of that process.”

Regarding the secret lifting of the moratorium, another deep concern was voiced by Beth Cameron, vice president for global biological policy and programs at the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative. Cameron told the Washington Post that safety would

depend largely on strong security measures at each lab to protect against an accidental release and govern who is allowed to work on the experiments.”

What could happen to the world if one of these labs were to accidentally or deliberately fail to enforce the “strong security measures” that the re-staffed advisory board had trusted they’d enforce?

As this article will continue to demonstrate, the systemic corruption documented has ended up causing a Chinese lab to develop potential bio-weapons, doing so while the lab maintained its own inadequate security measures at its own discretion.

All of the grants for all GOFR studies including those outsourced to China were approved by Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Fauci was the top authority on infectious diseases in the U.S. then too, with everybody looking up to him and trusting.

Fauci approves creating potential bioweapons in China after workarounds are devised to bypass moratorium

The situation is summarized by Asia Times:

In the face of a moratorium in the US, Dr. Anthony Fauci – the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and currently the leading doctor in the US Coronavirus Task Force –outsourced in 2015 the GOF research to China’s Wuhan lab and licensed the lab to continue receiving US government funding.”

The above information does check out, confirmed by this Nature article published in November 2015 describing the most alarming GOFR that was allowed to conclude. The article’s title states “Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research,” with its subtitle stating “Lab-made coronavirus related to SARS can infect human cells.” This article covers study results announced in a November 2015 paper describing the enhancement of a virus found in horseshoe bats in China. A ‘chimeric virus’ was created which was made capable of infecting human airway cells, which could cause a pandemic if allowed to escape. Nature summarizes:

Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that the researchers have created a novel virus that “grows remarkably well” in human cells. “If the virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” he says”

The same Nature article goes on to quote Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University, saying:

The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk.”

This GOFR which began in 2014 was not halted by the 2014 moratorium which had caused 18 (some sources say 21) other gain-of-function studies to get paused. This exception, as reported by Nature, occurred because this study

was already under way before the US moratorium began [so were other paused studies], and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency… The NIH eventually concluded that the work was not so risky as to fall under the moratorium, he says.”

Two of the researchers of this so-called “not so risky” GOFR are from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, according to the paper’s Author Information section.

Fauci’s NIAID is listed among the institutions which provided funding for this GOFR, as can be seen in the Acknowledgments section which states: Research in this manuscript was supported by grants from the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Disease.”

Although the 2014 moratorium had initially caused 18 (or 21) gain-of-function studies to get paused, “about half were later allowed to continue because the work didn’t fit the definition or was deemed essential to public health,” Science reports. All these workarounds had taken place before the moratorium was officially lifted in December 2017.

There was another GOFR project outsourced to China about studying bat coronaviruses in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which continued for 6 years until President Trump abruptly cut all funding to it in April 2020. This project too was never paused despite its first phase having begun in June 2014 right before the so-called moratorium was enacted in October 2014. This two phase project, which produced about 20 papers, was called “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence” and was sponsored by an organization called EcoHealth Alliance which partnered with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, among others. EcoHealth Alliance received more than $3.7 million in U.S. grants for this particular project, reports Politico, although the group’s president has denied sending all of these funds to China, according to emails Politico obtained.

Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) both administered and funded this entire project for its entire 6 year duration before it was stopped, as can be seen in the information about this 6-year project on the website of the National Institute of Health. Here, please note that the third and second columns from the right are all filled with the abbreviation NIAID, with the associated column titles representing the administering institution and center, and funding institution and center, respectively.

According to Newsweek, gain-of-function research was conducted during the second phase of this 6 year project which started in 2019, according to Richard Ebright, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers University who’s a famous opponent of GOFR. The project’s definition describes conducting experiments using genetic engineering to enhance the ability of bat coronavirus to infect human cells and lab animals, Ebright told Newsweek.

U.S. embassy warns Washington of pandemic threat from Wuhan. Still nothing done, Fauci continues funding

Out of sight and out of mind in China, how well did the Wuhan Institute of Virology succeed at implementing its own security measures while playing with genetically enhanced chimera viruses imposing pandemic threat?

The lab’s safety procedures became lax enough to alarm U.S. embassy officials in January 2018, coinciding with the time President Trump for the first time announced putting tariffs on Chinese goods in January 2018. The Washington Post reports that “In January 2018, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing took the unusual step of repeatedly sending U.S. science diplomats to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).” Washington Post explains what these U.S. diplomats saw, after which they explicitly warned Washington of the risk of a pandemic:

What the U.S. officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables [special diplomatic text-based messages] categorized as Sensitive But Unclassified back to Washington. The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help. The first cable, which I [the reporter] obtained, also warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic.”

Could it be a mere coincidence that the security measures at the Wuhan lab became as loose as they did, at the same time President Trump began putting tariffs on China? Although this may be a coincidence, former New York City Mayor and the President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani does not seem to think so. Giuliani summarized during an interview on The Cats Roundtable (03 minutes 11 seconds into the interview):

China predicted this could happen, China also for the last 10 to 12 years has been carrying on these experiments, including in this Wuhan laboratory, with animals, and actually making this virus more dangerous, seeing how dangerous this virus could become. You could say that’s for scientific purposes, or you could say that’s for the purpose of weaponizing them. Back in 2014, the Obama administration prohibited the U.S. from giving any money to any laboratory, including in the U.S., that was fooling around with these viruses. Prohibited! Despite that, Dr. Fauci gave $3.7 million to the Wuhan laboratory — and then even after the State Department issued reports about how unsafe that laboratory was, and how suspicious they were in the way they were developing a virus that could be transmitted to humans. We never pulled that money [before Trump did so]. So, something here is going on, John. I don’t want to make any accusations. But there was more knowledge about what was going on in China with our scientific people than they disclosed to us when this first came out. Just think of it: If this laboratory turns out to be the place where the virus came from, we paid for it. We paid for the damn virus that’s killing us.”

Here ends the insane story of trusting China with developing the world’s deadliest potential bioweapons with U.S. funding.

The judgment of the “expert” who approved the above has further damaged America by causing its economy to suffer perhaps irreparable losses, while China’s economy has months ago reopened and is strengthening.

Most important of all, despite the end of the U.S. grant to the Wuhan Institute, other deadly gain-of-function research studies are allowed to continue throughout the world.

Whether or not the coronavirus causing COVID-19 was artificially enhanced, the pathogen of the next pandemic is likely to be, if it may escape accidentally or deliberately get released as a bioweapon. This severe risk is very much real and continues to threaten mankind’s survival as I’ve attempted to demonstrate. This danger is not a fabrication of the minds of conspiracy theorists, despite being depicted as such by the biased media trying to prevent questioning and thinking.

Fauci pushed the Chinese model that paralyzed the world’s economy

If one may dare to continue to question and think in this age of backlash from fake media and censorship of our right of free speech, there seem to be a few more pieces of the puzzle that click together. The below lead could be investigated by intelligence agencies.

Dr. Niel Ferguson is the scientist from Imperial College London who created the mathematical model that falsely predicted as much as 2.2. million deaths from COVID-19, which Fauci pushed on America to force it to shut down its economy. Dr. Ferguson has received severe criticism for having publicly praised China’s lockdown model (Ferguson speaks in the video, transcript also provided). Likewise, the WHO has also publicly praised China’s response to the pandemic. Could there be a collaboration between Ferguson and the WHO with its roots in China?

The answer to the above question is literally a yes, as Ferguson was the head/director of an institution called The WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modeling. This is revealed in a deleted webpage that was still cached by Google at the time I saw it, please find the forensically viable saved version here.

Searching the website of Imperial College London where Ferguson works pulls the original article about Ferguson’s model that Fauci pushed on the U.S., which includes The WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modeling among its developers (stated after the list of authors). It recommends ‘mitigation’ or the Chinese lockdown model of ‘suppression’ as the two strategies to respond to the pandemic, where suppression “will require the layering of more intensive and socially disruptive measures,” which, Ferguson claims, must continue for at least a year or a year and a half! In exact words, the paper states that the intensive socially disruptive measures must:

be maintained – at least intermittently – for as long as the virus is circulating in the human population, or until a vaccine becomes available. In the case of COVID-19, it will be at least a 12-18 months before a vaccine is available.”

In his article, Ferguson also recommends very large-scale testing and contact tracing methods to be enacted, this time praising South Korea’s response. He explicitly recommends privacy concerns to be overcome in tracking everyone’s interactions with everyone else in society. He then scares the world, claiming that transmissions will rapidly rebound if suppression is not maintained. These points are stated as follows:

As case numbers fall, it becomes more feasible to adopt intensive testing, contact tracing and quarantine measures akin to the strategies being employed in South Korea today. Technology – such as mobile phone apps that track an individual’s interactions with other people in society – might allow such a policy to be more effective and scalable if the associated privacy concerns can be overcome. However, if intensive NPI packages aimed at suppression are not maintained, our analysis suggests that transmission will rapidly rebound, potentially producing an epidemic comparable in scale to what would have been seen had no interventions been adopted.”

U.S. governors are still trying to figure out how to fulfill these requirements of the testing and contact tracing of entire populations in ways that will not liable them of negligence, as job losses continue to soar and America races headlong into a second Great Depression.

If China has masterminded all of the above, one almost feels inclined to congratulate it.

The Imperial College of London Ferguson works for has not only housed the WHO Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modeling whose website has now been deleted, but it continues to house another organization called The WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Health Education and Training. The existence of such a center in the college where Ferguson works indicates the extent to which China fans Ferguson and the WHO may have collaborated in educating and training the public on responding to COVID-19.

A second opinion on how to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic

In the light of all of the above information, what could be the ideal response to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Seasoned experts such as influential Stanford researcher Professor John Ioannidis has co-authored a paper analyzing the actual mortality statistics from COVID-19. This paper concludes:

“Strategies focusing specifically on protecting high-risk elderly individuals should be considered in managing the pandemic.”

Dr. Ioannidis’s conclusion also states:

People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in the hotbeds of the pandemic and deaths for people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon.”

About the credibility of Dr. Ioannidis and his work, The Atlantic reports:

“He’s what’s known as a meta-researcher, and he’s become one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. … His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences. … Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive.”

While you’re at it, you may also want to see Professor Ioannidis’s editorial titled “Coronavirus disease 2019: The harms of exaggerated information and non-evidence-based measures.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *