4 ms·

Weren't scientists from the Chinese CDC actually authors of the Lancet article that everyone cited? It doesn't seem like they were trying to push any seafood ma

Weren't scientists from the Chinese CDC actually authors of the Lancet article that everyone cited? It doesn't seem like they were trying to push any seafood market hypothesis either.

speeder 5y ago
The author of that article is actually Peter Daszak of Ecohealth Alliance, that was funding the Wuhan lab for gain of function research, seemly using money from US government (NIH and another department I can't recall now). EDIT: why people are downvoting this? I got something wrong? The Peter Daszak that signed the article is not the same one that runs Ecohealth Alliance?
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  You are correct that this is the same Peter Daszak that is president of EcoHealth and he appears as an author on some papers put out by WIV concerning bat coronavirus research. He was also the only American representative the WHO allowed on the Wuhan visit and investigation earlier this year, after the WHO rejected three other nominees from the Trump administration. There are massive conflicts of interest all over his involvement in this tale. The other department you are thinking of is NIAID, which is a sub agency of the NIH. Fauci runs NIAID. The EcoHealth grant which went to WIV was from NIAID/NIH. You can find links to the actual grant from this fact check (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/04/fact-check-obama-administration-did-not-send-3-7-m-wuhan-lab/3061490001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/04/fac...), which ironically is one of these deceptive fact checks that claims something is false in the headline, then claims deep in the text that it is only partially false, all while the original claim is actually essentially true. As an aside, Professor Ebright from Rutgers described the EcoHealth-WIV research as “unequivocally” gain of function research (https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain...). He also accused NIH/NIAID of systematically undermining and avoiding oversight processes that were meant to prevent dangerous grants like this, especially since GoF research was banned in the US (https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/06/fauci-must-explain-why-oversight-bypassed-for-funding-to-wuhan-lab-congressman-says/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/06/fauci-must-explain-wh...). Ebright also accused Fauci of lying during the recent senate hearing where Senator Rand Paul questioned him (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biosafety-expert-explains-why-faucis-nih-gain-of-function-testimony-was-demonstrably-false/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biosafety-expert-explain...). Ebright was also one of the few brave signatories on the March letter pointing out flaws with the WHO investigation and study, and asking for a new investigation (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/04/us/covid-origins-letter.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/04/us/covid-orig...).

Weren't scientists from the Chinese CDC actually authors of the Lancet article that everyone cited? It doesn't seem like they were trying to push any seafood market hypothesis either.

speeder 5y ago

The author of that article is actually Peter Daszak of Ecohealth Alliance, that was funding the Wuhan lab for gain of function research, seemly using money from US government (NIH and another department I can't recall now). EDIT: why people are downvoting this? I got something wrong? The Peter Daszak that signed the article is not the same one that runs Ecohealth Alliance?

throwawaysea 5y ago
You are correct that this is the same Peter Daszak that is president of EcoHealth and he appears as an author on some papers put out by WIV concerning bat coronavirus research. He was also the only American representative the WHO allowed on the Wuhan visit and investigation earlier this year, after the WHO rejected three other nominees from the Trump administration. There are massive conflicts of interest all over his involvement in this tale. The other department you are thinking of is NIAID, which is a sub agency of the NIH. Fauci runs NIAID. The EcoHealth grant which went to WIV was from NIAID/NIH. You can find links to the actual grant from this fact check (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/04/fact-check-obama-administration-did-not-send-3-7-m-wuhan-lab/3061490001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/04/fac...), which ironically is one of these deceptive fact checks that claims something is false in the headline, then claims deep in the text that it is only partially false, all while the original claim is actually essentially true. As an aside, Professor Ebright from Rutgers described the EcoHealth-WIV research as “unequivocally” gain of function research (https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain...). He also accused NIH/NIAID of systematically undermining and avoiding oversight processes that were meant to prevent dangerous grants like this, especially since GoF research was banned in the US (https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/06/fauci-must-explain-why-oversight-bypassed-for-funding-to-wuhan-lab-congressman-says/ https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/04/06/fauci-must-explain-wh...). Ebright also accused Fauci of lying during the recent senate hearing where Senator Rand Paul questioned him (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biosafety-expert-explains-why-faucis-nih-gain-of-function-testimony-was-demonstrably-false/ https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biosafety-expert-explain...). Ebright was also one of the few brave signatories on the March letter pointing out flaws with the WHO investigation and study, and asking for a new investigation (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/04/us/covid-origins-letter.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/03/04/us/covid-orig...).