17 ms·

Would Fauci have even known? Budget numbers say NIAID clears around $5 billion in grant funding per year and this grant was more at the $100k per year level. An

Would Fauci have even known? Budget numbers say NIAID clears around $5 billion in grant funding per year and this grant was more at the $100k per year level. Another source shows that NIAID receives around 3,000 grant applications per year and that's just in two of their multiple grant types. It seems most likely to me that the grant was approved and funded by a subject-area committee without Fauci being involved at all. I would guess that when he "admitted to it" was probably the first time he knew.

Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
What's been highlighted of the FOIA released emails so far suggests he didn't know if his NIAID was funding Wuhan Institute of Virology SARS type coronavirus gain of function experiments, but he was quite concerned that might be the case. Look for the one where he tells someone to keep his cell phone on. It's something he'd likely be concerned about, because he's been a big booster of gain of function research, and the Institute famously houses China's first BSL-4 lab, although the article claims the Bat Lady said prior to the pandemic they were only using BSL-2 and -3 labs for their coronavirus research. This assumes she'd know about all that was going on the Institute.
- myfavoritedog 5y ago
  The email trail is damning. Fauci knew that the possibility was there. Instead of pushing for discovery and transparency of what actually happened, he publicly and vehemently denied the possibility and gave fuel to those who wanted to call the "lab leak theory" people "conspiracy nuts". Fauci's elevation to sainthood was way too premature. His constant media appearances where he hasn't been questioned on any of this should be an object lesson to the public on media bias and the subsequent narrative bubbles that impact our society. It's not surprising that the same people pushing Michael Avenatti as the next great politician have been the same people promoting Fauci.
  - devtul 5y ago
    The bar is really low if the person helps push the narrative.
  - boringg 5y ago
    I don't think anyone thought Avenatti had any substance to him. Nice try and trying to equate Fauci with Avenatti - please return to the cable Fox hole which you emerged from.
    - myfavoritedog 5y ago
      I don't think anyone thought Avenatti had any substance to him. What you're doing is called "gas lighting". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrJwjYPQvhQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrJwjYPQvhQ Avenatti was ALL over the place in left-leaning media, receiving endless accolades.
  - iab 5y ago
    This is an issue for sure. The core reason though, IMO, was the contrast - for example, you have the president calling for injecting bleach, publicly. Any reasonable person is going to drift away from that, and towards someone who seems more reasonable, and thoughtful. Now that there is less extreme rhetoric, the seams in this particular leadership are starting to show. Can't say the same for Michael Avenatti, who seemed unhinged from the beginning although again just my opinion.
    - kbelder 5y ago
      "you have the president calling for injecting bleach" Please don't repeat that. If you do even a little bit of research, you'll see that he didn't say that, and by repeating it you're lowering the dialog you want to raising.
      - iab 5y ago
        I'll do you one better than repeating it: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177 Thanks for your unsubstantiated comment though
nyokodo 5y ago
> Would Fauci have even known? Firstly, he has no excuse to be ignorant. Secondly, I’d wager every administrator and CEO who has any involvement with viral biomedical research were making urgent albeit possibly discreet inquiries into any possible involvement around February 2020.
jtbayly 5y ago
Would Fauci have known that gain of function research was now legal again?! Of course he would. Whether or not to fund that sort of risky research that has gone back and forth in legality is precisely the kind of thing that his job required him to know, isn't it?
- johncena33 5y ago
  Yes, he knew. Here's the presentation he did on gain of function research back in January 2018 [1]. [1] https://twitter.com/ydeigin/status/1400321255824371714 https://twitter.com/ydeigin/status/1400321255824371714
- Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
  Right you are. But you're supposed to run grant proposals past a board which was created as part of the end of the funding moratorium, and it's been alleged this wasn't done, and that was routine for either Fauci's institute or the NIH as a whole.
- thu2111 5y ago
  According to Wade's article it's actually even murkier than that. Only Fauci or one other person could have actually overridden the ban to keep the money flowing and prevent oversight of it: The moratorium, referred to officially as a “pause,” specifically barred funding any gain-of-function research that increased the pathogenicity of the flu, MERS or SARS viruses. It defined gain-of-function very simply and broadly as “research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.” But then a footnote on p.2 of the moratorium document states that “An exception from the research pause may be obtained if the head of the USG funding agency determines that the research is urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security.” This seemed to mean that either the director of the NIAID, Dr. Anthony Fauci, or the director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, or maybe both, would have invoked the exemption in order to keep the money flowing to Dr. Shi’s gain-of-function research, and later to avoid notifying the Federal reporting system of her research.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    The moratorium was rescinded in 2017.
johncena33 5y ago
Fauci definitely knew about funding gain of function research. [1] Whether he was aware of funding going to WIV, that's a different question. [1] https://twitter.com/ydeigin/status/1400321255824371714 https://twitter.com/ydeigin/status/1400321255824371714
kelnos 5y ago
Pretty sure if I ran an organization that funds a bunch of labs that do virus research, and a global pandemic started in the neighborhood of a lab doing virus research, and people started floating the theory that the virus leaked from that lab, one of the first things I'd do is call my grant-funding team and ask them if we funded that lab. If Fauci didn't do that, he's a strange dude.
- stef25 5y ago
  100K from a 5B budget is peanuts and you couldn't reasonably expect the person at the top to know the details of what each recipient of 100K is doing exactly. If all of the 5B is spent on coronavirus research then it's a different story. Most likely it's spent on an incredibly wide array of topics.
  - Closi 5y ago
    This is the difference between responsibility and accountability. The person at the top might not know what each recipient is doing, but is still accountable for the funding decisions that were made (and oversaw the people and process that made those decisions on the organisations behalf).
    - rorykoehler 5y ago
      Absolutely spot on. Who on Earth would downvote this?
      - atatatat 5y ago
        Those who think it's acceptable to fund government very well, and then not hold them responsible for their choices.
      - myfavoritedog 5y ago
        Those who look at politics as sport and are mostly concerned that their team has lost this round.
hbosch 5y ago
> Would Fauci have even known? I think yes. Perhaps not upfront, perhaps not in the following days or weeks. But if your organization had funded a laboratory's gain of function research, and that laboratory is suddenly the topic of global speculation for potentially leaking a virus, a virus which is ostensibly a product directly of your funding and became one of the deadliest global pandemics ever... I think it would be hard to not know at some point.
macspoofing 5y ago
>Would Fauci have even known? So maybe he finds out before making statements? I've lost faith in Fauci when he admitted he lied about the efficacy of masks early on in the pandemic. He literally came out and stated he lied in order to make sure frontline healthcare workers had enough PPE. That was the most insane statement I've ever heard a public health leader make - lying about healthcare to the public that may result in more infections. That is how you destroy public trust. What's sad is that the population would understand if you just told them the truth, namely that masks help, but our frontline works desperately need them so getting them masks and PPE is a priority.
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  > What's sad is that the population would understand if you just told them the truth, namely that masks help, but our frontline works desperately need them so getting them masks and PPE is a priority. Maybe elsewhere, but not in America. This is one of the most selfish/individualist countries on earth.
  - macspoofing 5y ago
    >Maybe elsewhere, but not in America. This is one of the most selfish/individualist countries on earth. That's a disgusting statement. People are people. And the vast majority of people in every country are good people. It's also not true, but even if it was, he has no right to lie to people about their healthcare and well-being. You can't do that because this kind of lie actually hurt people who would have wore a mask (homemade or otherwise) but didn't (and maybe got sick or died), all because they trusted him.
    - quickthrowman 5y ago
      > It's also not true I’m glad macspoofing is here to set us all straight about the facts on American individualism, we’d be lost without your wisdom and guidance o wise one. I shall not post an opinion without consulting you first. Edit: might as well burn some karma. You’re either 15, or extremely naive and idealistic. Read some history please.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Throwawayaerlei 5y ago

What's been highlighted of the FOIA released emails so far suggests he didn't know if his NIAID was funding Wuhan Institute of Virology SARS type coronavirus gain of function experiments, but he was quite concerned that might be the case. Look for the one where he tells someone to keep his cell phone on. It's something he'd likely be concerned about, because he's been a big booster of gain of function research, and the Institute famously houses China's first BSL-4 lab, although the article claims the Bat Lady said prior to the pandemic they were only using BSL-2 and -3 labs for their coronavirus research. This assumes she'd know about all that was going on the Institute.

myfavoritedog 5y ago
The email trail is damning. Fauci knew that the possibility was there. Instead of pushing for discovery and transparency of what actually happened, he publicly and vehemently denied the possibility and gave fuel to those who wanted to call the "lab leak theory" people "conspiracy nuts". Fauci's elevation to sainthood was way too premature. His constant media appearances where he hasn't been questioned on any of this should be an object lesson to the public on media bias and the subsequent narrative bubbles that impact our society. It's not surprising that the same people pushing Michael Avenatti as the next great politician have been the same people promoting Fauci.
- devtul 5y ago
  The bar is really low if the person helps push the narrative.
- boringg 5y ago
  I don't think anyone thought Avenatti had any substance to him. Nice try and trying to equate Fauci with Avenatti - please return to the cable Fox hole which you emerged from.
  - myfavoritedog 5y ago
    I don't think anyone thought Avenatti had any substance to him. What you're doing is called "gas lighting". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrJwjYPQvhQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrJwjYPQvhQ Avenatti was ALL over the place in left-leaning media, receiving endless accolades.
- iab 5y ago
  This is an issue for sure. The core reason though, IMO, was the contrast - for example, you have the president calling for injecting bleach, publicly. Any reasonable person is going to drift away from that, and towards someone who seems more reasonable, and thoughtful. Now that there is less extreme rhetoric, the seams in this particular leadership are starting to show. Can't say the same for Michael Avenatti, who seemed unhinged from the beginning although again just my opinion.
  - kbelder 5y ago
    "you have the president calling for injecting bleach" Please don't repeat that. If you do even a little bit of research, you'll see that he didn't say that, and by repeating it you're lowering the dialog you want to raising.
    - iab 5y ago
      I'll do you one better than repeating it: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177 Thanks for your unsubstantiated comment though

nyokodo 5y ago

> Would Fauci have even known? Firstly, he has no excuse to be ignorant. Secondly, I’d wager every administrator and CEO who has any involvement with viral biomedical research were making urgent albeit possibly discreet inquiries into any possible involvement around February 2020.

jtbayly 5y ago

Would Fauci have known that gain of function research was now legal again?! Of course he would. Whether or not to fund that sort of risky research that has gone back and forth in legality is precisely the kind of thing that his job required him to know, isn't it?

johncena33 5y ago
Yes, he knew. Here's the presentation he did on gain of function research back in January 2018 [1]. [1] https://twitter.com/ydeigin/status/1400321255824371714 https://twitter.com/ydeigin/status/1400321255824371714
Throwawayaerlei 5y ago
Right you are. But you're supposed to run grant proposals past a board which was created as part of the end of the funding moratorium, and it's been alleged this wasn't done, and that was routine for either Fauci's institute or the NIH as a whole.
thu2111 5y ago
According to Wade's article it's actually even murkier than that. Only Fauci or one other person could have actually overridden the ban to keep the money flowing and prevent oversight of it: The moratorium, referred to officially as a “pause,” specifically barred funding any gain-of-function research that increased the pathogenicity of the flu, MERS or SARS viruses. It defined gain-of-function very simply and broadly as “research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.” But then a footnote on p.2 of the moratorium document states that “An exception from the research pause may be obtained if the head of the USG funding agency determines that the research is urgently necessary to protect the public health or national security.” This seemed to mean that either the director of the NIAID, Dr. Anthony Fauci, or the director of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, or maybe both, would have invoked the exemption in order to keep the money flowing to Dr. Shi’s gain-of-function research, and later to avoid notifying the Federal reporting system of her research.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  The moratorium was rescinded in 2017.

johncena33 5y ago

Fauci definitely knew about funding gain of function research. [1] Whether he was aware of funding going to WIV, that's a different question. [1] https://twitter.com/ydeigin/status/1400321255824371714 https://twitter.com/ydeigin/status/1400321255824371714

kelnos 5y ago

Pretty sure if I ran an organization that funds a bunch of labs that do virus research, and a global pandemic started in the neighborhood of a lab doing virus research, and people started floating the theory that the virus leaked from that lab, one of the first things I'd do is call my grant-funding team and ask them if we funded that lab. If Fauci didn't do that, he's a strange dude.

stef25 5y ago
100K from a 5B budget is peanuts and you couldn't reasonably expect the person at the top to know the details of what each recipient of 100K is doing exactly. If all of the 5B is spent on coronavirus research then it's a different story. Most likely it's spent on an incredibly wide array of topics.
- Closi 5y ago
  This is the difference between responsibility and accountability. The person at the top might not know what each recipient is doing, but is still accountable for the funding decisions that were made (and oversaw the people and process that made those decisions on the organisations behalf).
  - rorykoehler 5y ago
    Absolutely spot on. Who on Earth would downvote this?
    - atatatat 5y ago
      Those who think it's acceptable to fund government very well, and then not hold them responsible for their choices.
    - myfavoritedog 5y ago
      Those who look at politics as sport and are mostly concerned that their team has lost this round.

hbosch 5y ago

> Would Fauci have even known? I think yes. Perhaps not upfront, perhaps not in the following days or weeks. But if your organization had funded a laboratory's gain of function research, and that laboratory is suddenly the topic of global speculation for potentially leaking a virus, a virus which is ostensibly a product directly of your funding and became one of the deadliest global pandemics ever... I think it would be hard to not know at some point.

macspoofing 5y ago

>Would Fauci have even known? So maybe he finds out before making statements? I've lost faith in Fauci when he admitted he lied about the efficacy of masks early on in the pandemic. He literally came out and stated he lied in order to make sure frontline healthcare workers had enough PPE. That was the most insane statement I've ever heard a public health leader make - lying about healthcare to the public that may result in more infections. That is how you destroy public trust. What's sad is that the population would understand if you just told them the truth, namely that masks help, but our frontline works desperately need them so getting them masks and PPE is a priority.

quickthrowman 5y ago
> What's sad is that the population would understand if you just told them the truth, namely that masks help, but our frontline works desperately need them so getting them masks and PPE is a priority. Maybe elsewhere, but not in America. This is one of the most selfish/individualist countries on earth.
- macspoofing 5y ago
  >Maybe elsewhere, but not in America. This is one of the most selfish/individualist countries on earth. That's a disgusting statement. People are people. And the vast majority of people in every country are good people. It's also not true, but even if it was, he has no right to lie to people about their healthcare and well-being. You can't do that because this kind of lie actually hurt people who would have wore a mask (homemade or otherwise) but didn't (and maybe got sick or died), all because they trusted him.
  - quickthrowman 5y ago
    > It's also not true I’m glad macspoofing is here to set us all straight about the facts on American individualism, we’d be lost without your wisdom and guidance o wise one. I shall not post an opinion without consulting you first. Edit: might as well burn some karma. You’re either 15, or extremely naive and idealistic. Read some history please.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]