Fauci Funneled Millions Of US Dollars To Wuhan Lab For Coronavirus Research

Many now believe the source of the Chinese coronavirus which causes COVID-19 is the Wuhan Virology Lab. Was its escape purposeful or accidental? We don’t know yet. But there is new and disturbing news about Dr. Anthony Fauci, NIAID chief and WH Coronavirus Task Force Member, and that lab.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984. He is considered by many to be the leading authority on infectious disease in America, perhaps even the world. However, if reports in Newsweek and elsewhere are true, he may have to explain some troubling truths.

For months, the Chinese Communist Party told us two lies. The first was that the Chinese coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, originated at a “wet market” where wild animal meat is sold in an unregulated environment. We were told the virus jumped from a bat slaughtered there into a human, starting the outbreak.

The problem with that claim is two-fold. First, the Wuhan wet market doesn’t sell bat meat or any foods made from bats. As an aside, the Chinese Horseshoe Bat doesn’t carry any coronavirus within genetic shouting distance of the one we’re dealing with, according to the earliest scholarly articles.

Second, recent research by Chinese scientists, which has since been censored by China, revealed that 13 of the first 41 patients had no connection to the wet market. They hadn’t visited the market or had contact with anyone who had for the 14 days prior to being found to have COVID-19.

The second lie told by China was an even bigger one, with worldwide implications. They told us that the virus had no human-to-human transmission capability. We were told it could only be transmitted from animals to humans.

Here’s a fun fact. The World Health Organization, or WHO, repeated that lie…repeatedly. They told the world the Chinese had the virus under control and that we should go about our lives as normal. I’ll have more on the China connection to this worldwide disaster in the coming days.

We recently found out that the US State Department received word from inspectors and officials as early as 2017 that security at the BSL-4 lab in Wuhan was inadequate. BSL-4 means Bio-Safety Level 4. That is the highest level of security available. But apparently, that isn’t what it meant to the Chinese. The cables to the State Department specifically warned about the possibility that an accident at the lab could trigger a pandemic.

Why am I telling you all of this? Because Dr. Fauci, who has become something of a pseudo-celebrity, public health superhero to many has a somewhat questionable connection to this shady pandemic risk. It turns out that Dr. Fauci funneled $3.7 million dollars of US taxpayer money to the Wuhan lab beginning in 2014.

Dr. Fauci is rightfully commended for his work on HIV/AIDS. Much of his work led to the treatments and preventives that exist today. He’s done some fascinating and useful work in the area of immunology, vaccinations and public health.

However, some of his other work begs some serious questions. Questions that perhaps Dr. Fauci ought to be held to answer by a mostly fawning press corp.

The most troubling of this work revolves around coronaviruses. About ten years ago, Fauci was touting the value of performing “gain of function” research on coronaviruses. Dr. Fauci believed that the research was part and parcel to preparing for the next pandemic. He believed the research would allow scientists to prepare for such an event by finding potential anti-viral treatments and laying the groundwork for vaccine research.

Gain of function work basically means making a virus more likely to cause an outbreak, an epidemic or pandemic. The essence of the work is passing a wild virus through live animal subjects. By repeating this process, viruses that might not otherwise be able to jump from animal to human or be transmissible from human to human gain that function. Hence the name, “gain of function.”

What this process does is increase the transmission capability of a virus. In other words, it becomes a much more likely pandemic threat. The work Dr. Fauci was promoting was being done using ferrets. Other animals are suitable hosts for this work, as well, including pigs, cats, rats and bats. It’s a lineup almost begging to be in a Dr. Seuss book, but I digress. One challenge with bats is that they already carry a number of viruses naturally, often including coronaviruses. (1)

If this sounds worrisome to you, you aren’t alone. Even veteran scientists were and continue to be concerned. Over 200 of them called for an end to the research. They were convinced it created a greater possibility that a laboratory accident would lead to a pandemic. Sound familiar? That’s currently one of the leading hypotheses related to the current global disaster.

Dr. Fauci, however, stood by the work. In a December 30, 2011 piece in the Washington Post, Anthony Fauci and two others had this to say: “[D]etermining the molecular Achilles’ heel of these viruses can allow scientists to identify novel antiviral drug targets that could be used to prevent infection in those at risk or to better treat those who become infected. Decades of experience tells us that disseminating information gained through biomedical research to legitimate scientists and health officials provides a critical foundation for generating appropriate countermeasures and, ultimately, protecting the public health.”

Allegations have now arisen claiming that Dr. Fauci funded the Wuhan lab with $3.7 million dollars – at the same time that the Obama administration was forcing the NIH to put a moratorium on gain of function work on coronaviruses. The result of the moratorium was the suspension of more than 20 different research studies. (2)

That wasn’t the end of it, however. Let’s remember that NIAID is one of the constituent organizations of the National Institutes of Health (NIH.) To say that Dr. Fauci is influential in both organizations is quite fair. In December, 2017, reportedly at Dr. Fauci’s urging, NIH ended the moratorium, restored the funding channel and allowed the second phase of the NIAID project to start.

This was the deepest and most dangerous of the gain of function research. NIH attempted to ride herd on it, insisting that researchers vet their work through a group of peer experts before beginning. Those experts had the job of weighing the risks against the rewards and giving approval or not.

A big problem with the research and the reviews was that it was kept secret. If the peer review group knew their decisions would be subject to public scrutiny, that might change their approach, don’t you think?

It took a reporter from Science magazine to uncover the fact that gain of function research was being used in two NIH-approved influenza projects. Secrecy was not supposed to be part of the process and it drew the rebuke of well-respected researchers.

Marc Lipstch of Harvard University and Tom Inglesby of Johns Hopkins University wrote in a Washington Post editorial “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.”

They added “At stake here is the credibility of science, which depends on public support to continue. Science is a powerful driver of human health, well-being and prosperity, and nearly all of it can be done without putting populations at risk. If governments want to fund exceptionally risky science, they should do so openly and in a way that promotes public awareness and engagement.” (3)

Now that it is being widely reported that intelligence sources place the origin of the COVID-19 outbreak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology or it’s sister lab in the same complex, Dr. Fauci’s funding efforts and research could be deemed dangerous sleight-of-hand. Questions need to be answered if we are to maintain our trust as a nation in this doctor.

Perhaps his motives were completely positive. Perhaps he truly wanted us to be prepared for the next major pandemic, and deeper understanding of gain of function and transmission is the way to do that. Perhaps the timing of all of this is purely coincidental.

But perhaps not. And that’s the problem.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been one of the architects of this nations response to the COVID-19 virus. While infection rates rise, hospitalizations fall and the mortality rate flat-out crashes to levels well below the seasonal flu.

But what was Dr. Fauci’s response to the COVID-19 virus? Shut down the world’s most vibrant economy, keep people frightened to death, demand universal vaccination and lecture us about how shaking hands should go out of style permanently. Tinder and Grinder dates are okay, though. Dr. Fauci says so. (4)

The point is, Fauci was doing research, through proxies at the Wuhan lab, paid for by US taxpayer dollars, on SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. That’s what this whole story points to, but nobody in the media seems to want to ask the obvious questions, so I will.

If you were doing secret research into gain of function for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19,) why the hell didn’t you know enough about it to know how it would pan out over time?

Follow-up question #1. Why did you let us spend trillions of dollars building one false economy (ventilators, PPE, instant hospitals – now empty – and other medical “emergencies”) while the real economy (and the lives it supports) is spiraling into ruin?

Follow-up question #2. If you’d done so much research on this and other viruses, why did you seemingly encourage the government, media and political class to treat this like the end of the world? More importantly, as we learned just how flawed the “death models” were, and how full of improper assumptions they were, why didn’t you urge a change of course?

There are plenty of other questions to be asked. About the way the research was restarted, the secret nature of it, the seemingly hidden funding and the insistence on creating superbugs in order to combat, well, superbugs.

I’m not trying to indict Dr. Fauci here. I believe in cutting edge research. That kind of research has kept my wife alive a hell of a lot longer than anyone ever imagined. Dr. Fauci is way smarter than me (at least I think so.) And I am by no means ascribing nefarious motives to him or anyone on the WH Task Force.

That being said, there are still questions he should have to answer. And those answers might lead us to view this whole chapter in human history very differently.

Stay safe, stay sane, love the ones who matter and keep the faith and keep after it!

Related Content –
First COVID-19 Coronavirus Outbreak In Wuhan Not From Bats
The Unintended Consequences Of COVID-19 Coronavirus Social Distancing
A Model For Measuring Impact Of Social Distancing On COVID-19 In States As They Reopen

Processing…
Success! You’re on the list.
  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6356540/
  2. https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741
  3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-is-funding-dangerous-experiments-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about/2019/02/27/5f60e934-38ae-11e9-a2cd-307b06d0257b_story.html
  4. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/anthony-fauci-on-new-rules-of-living-with-coronavirus
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Fauci Funneled Millions Of US Dollars To Wuhan Lab For Coronavirus Research

  1. This is all absolutely worthy of careful investigation. It always seemed to defy logic that it didn’t originate in one of those labs–at least by accident–which makes the Chinese response and secrecy in response to it understandable. I read about Fauci’s involvement–the ending of these “gain of function” experiments and the resumption of them. He has dismissed that it came from a lab out of hand — no doubt because he knows eventually this would come to light. It seems to also defy logic that a scientist or medical person would dismiss the origins of this out of hand–and the only people who do it have a political motive. Lots of good questions. I think I’ll repost your blog here. I’ve been talking about this, too, but it’s comprehensive and you have those links. Nice job. Those “gain of function” things make NO sense–whatever pandemic that arises would have unique characteristics that would have to be addressed and messing with ONE would not give us enough information about ANOTHER one to justify the risk and what they’ve just unleashed on the world. I have a friend always touting science and believing the global warming models without question (yeah their models are so great), while I always told him it would some measurable mess up by these scientists that did it — GMO Frankenstein, pesticides that wipe out some vital component of nature like bees, a virus or bacteria they are messing with. Science is a double-edged sword and some worship it like a God. People should watch these guys a lot closer.

    1. There are legitimate uses for gain of function research. When you’re dealing with a know human to human pathogen, they can be used to trace development of transmissibility back along the chain. Doesn’t sound like that’s what happened here, though. Thanks for your thoughts and I hope your happy and healthy!

      1. Maybe so, but I would have to question how much the risks outweigh benefits– hardly ever, for me, though I haven’t studied it carefully. It’s not that there couldn’t be some USE for them, but that there are too many risks for me (though again, a more careful look). Of course, I felt that way about a lot of nuclear energy, too. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should, and I tend to not like a lot of this. I’m not even fond of a lot of technology, so…

      2. Your point is quite valid. The useful gain of function studies are the ones that help us gain an advantage over a known pathogen, but not for novel pathogens we claim to know nothing about. Let’s keep talking about this so the ugly details don’t get glossed over. We are the front lines here.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.