Funny Fauci Erupts After Updated Rand Paul Grilling


Update (1250ET): To borrow a phrase that is popular with millennials, Senator Rand Paul found that “the receipts” clearly prove that Drs. Fauci lied about the NIH’s “gain of function” research for research on coronavirus bats at the Wuhan Institue of Virology.

While there is a bright spot for translation, the NIH’s own experts – said Drs. Fauci had previously unanimously rejected the idea that it was research ‘gain of function’ – actually agreeing that its opposite was the case.

It’s just a reminder that Dr. Fauci and other senior public health officials prioritize the protection of “narrative” over “science”.

* * *

The controversy between them Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has become accustomed to appearing in testimony of the latter before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which is to be given by Dr. Fauci complied with the COVID stimulus law.

And on Tuesday, they also clashed after Senator Paul Dr. Fauci who lied to Congress in his testimony in May, at the time when Drs. Fauci that the United States has never funded projects that would benefit the Wuhan Institute of Virology. For those unfamiliar with the term, ‘Gain-of-function’ research is included making viruses more contagious or lethal in a laboratory.

Sen. began. Paul by asking Dr. Fauci if he wanted to review some of his statements about NIH research, he was reminded that it is an offense to lie to Congress. Here’s what the rest of the short repetition says.

“Did you take the retraction of your statement from May 11 where you said that the NIH never funded the undertaking of function research in Wuhan?”

“Senator Paul, I have never lied before Congress, and I have not retracted that statement… This role you are referring to is judged by qualified staff up and down the chain without getting the move. ”

“You carry an animal virus and you increase human transmission, you say that doesn’t work?”

“That’s right…and Sen. Paul, I want to say you don’t know what you’re talking about, ” Fauci replied. “I just want to tell that officer.”

Paul said that in his testimony on May 11, Fauci “stated that the NIH does not and does not currently fund research to get a function at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. However, research to get a function has been done throughout institution in Wuhan by Doctor Shi [Zhengli] and funded by the NIH. ”

Readers can watch the clip below:

When Senator Paul tried to pursue the issue, he was chastised by the (Democratic) chairman of the committee, who said he would allow witnesses to go to the committee to respond at a later date.

Not providing any examples to support his claim, Drs. Fauci took the last word by saying “you show that what we do is responsible for the deaths of individuals, and I’m totally outraged that… if anyone is lying here it’s you.”

Fauci later admitted that the viruses from the paper Paul cited were “molecularly impossible to produce SARS-CoV-2.”

While the denial of Dr. Fauci can be more convincing, we already know that what he says is wrong is not true.

As in we used to report, led by Drs. Fauci that NIH has effectively helped invest in much of the ‘acquired function’ research related to coronavirus bats that continues at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Not only Fauci argues that ‘acquisition of function’ research is ‘worth the risk’ that a highly infectious virus could escape and cause an international pandemic. Why not do this research in the US? Well, because ‘gain-of-function’ research has been illegal in the US for years

we first recorded in March, the NIH – led by Fauci – has funded several projects involving WIV scientists, including most of the work in the Wuhan lab with coronavirus bats.

Even the Washington Post confirmed that WIV “has openly participated in research that has gained a function in collaboration with U.S. universities and institutions” over the many years under Dr. Shi ‘Batwoman’ Zhengli.

Paul often accused Dr. Fauci used a half -man – an organization called EcoAlliance, led by Peter Daszak, the same scientist who led the group of WHO scientists tasked with “investigating” the origin of the virus. The money provided by the EcoAlliance through the NIH was used mostly to fund WIV research conducted by the “batwoman” – or Zhengli Shi.

When the U.S. government created barriers to this research during the Obama years, Drs. Fauci is a solution.

By The Australian:

Several Trump administration officials told The Weekend Australian Dr Fauci had not raised the issue of also starting to fund research on older people in the White House.

“It’s a class that just ended,” said an official.

“I think there’s truth to the narrative that the staff (National Security Council), the president, the chief-of-staff of the White House, those people are in the dark that he’s back the research.”

Weekend Australian also confirmed that nothing has been appointed to Mike Pompeo, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, or also a member of the National Security Council Matthew Pottinger.

The experiments were also opposed by prominent scientists, including the Cambridge Working Group of 200 researchers who issued a public warning in 2014.

“Accident risks of newly created“ potential pandemic pathogens ” raising new concerns, ”the group wrote in a letter. “Making the laboratory the most transferable, novel types of dangerous viruses, especially but not limited to the flu, presents many risks.

“An accidental infection in such a condition can cause outbreaks that are difficult or impossible to control. Historically, new types of influenza, once established in human population migration, have affected un-quarter or more of the world’s population within two years. ”

And Steven Salzberg, of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, in 2015 said that the research benefits of getting a function are “very small” and they can be “much safer to get through other research methods”.

“I am very concerned that the ongoing research into influenza viruses, and even more so now of other viruses, poses an even more serious public health risk,” he wrote.

Looking back, is it worth the risk?

Published from ZeroHedge.com with permission





Source link

Leave a Reply

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