3 ms·

I’m familiar with the specifics, and if anything gpt-4o is underselling the egregious behavior. It doesn’t mention for example, that those scientists who immedi

by ckw 1y ago

I’m familiar with the specifics, and if anything gpt-4o is underselling the egregious behavior. It doesn’t mention for example, that those scientists who immediately changed their views concurrently received millions of dollars in new grants, which looks incredibly suspicious in retrospect. It also doesn’t discuss rank self-interest as a possible motive for suppression, namely that Fauci was responsible for funding research at WIV which could plausibly have lead to the creation of SARS-COV-2. I’ll ask 03 to summarize and provide sources: ‘As director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Anthony Fauci oversaw grant R01AI110964—channeled through EcoHealth Alliance to the Wuhan Institute of Virology—that financed experiments creating chimeric bat coronaviruses whose enhanced growth in human-ACE2 mice met the federal definition of gain-of-function, a fact NIH conceded only in an October 2021 letter after Fauci had publicly denied such funding . A 2023 HHS-OIG audit later found NIH “did not effectively monitor or take timely action” on this award, missing chances to mitigate its risks . On 1 February 2020, e-mails show Fauci was warned the pandemic virus might have leaked from WIV; he then “prompted” authors of the influential Proximal Origin paper and worked with NIH leadership to “put down” the lab-leak hypothesis—actions that, if successful, would deflect scrutiny from his own institute’s funding decisions . A 2024 House Select Subcommittee report further concluded that EcoHealth “used taxpayer dollars to facilitate gain-of-function research…contrary to previous public statements, including those by Dr. Anthony Fauci,” underscoring his personal and institutional stake in suppressing the lab-leak narrative .’ Inline sources are provided in the result, but missing in the copy.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> It doesn’t mention for example, that those scientists who immediately changed their views concurrently received millions of dollars in new grants Would you have preferred that they have their grant applications cancelled after having published a paper? Let's dig in a little bit to the weasel words here. ======== > Fauci "prompted" authors of the influential Proximal Origin paper Here's the source email that mentions this nefarious "prompting": > There has been a lot of speculation, fear mongering, and conspiracies put forward in this space and we thought that bringing some clarity to this discussion might be of interest to Nature [sic]. Prompted by Jeremy Farrah [sic], Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins, Eddie Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Bob Garry, Ian Lipkin, and myself have been working through much of the (primarily) genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus. What a smoking gun! Err... I guess not... ===== > worked with NIH leadership to “put down” the lab-leak hypothesis This refers to Francis Collins asking Fauci whether there was more that could kill momentum behind the competing theory. It's important to note this momentum was driven primarily by media attention and not growing scientific consensus or any new scientific evidence. That is entirely consistent with someone who does not want what they see as an incorrect explanation to become the public's consensus view (especially when concerned about the possible ramifications of that consensus forming without sufficient evidence). This happened after Fauci had "prompted [a team] to work through much of the (primarily) genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus." Fauci's response: "I would not do anything about this right now." ==== Again: No one prevented any scientist from publishing their competing theories. They may have had a hard time getting taken seriously, they may have not been accepted to Nature, they may have been called a quack: but that is often what it means to go up against the consensus view. That is not censorship. That is the imperfect system of science as it always works in every domain.
- trhway 1y ago
  You're weaseling around the fact that Fauci outright and knowingly lied to the Congress about funding the gain-of-function research in WIV. That research in particular includfed successful inserting of human ACE2 receptor binding protein into non-human coronavirus with the resulting virus successfully killing off mice engineered with the human cells with ACE2 receptors. That happens to be exactly what COVID is, and that happened right before the official COVID emergence in Wuhan. >to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus. you can't do this if you don't include the viruses created in Wuhan, and they intentionally hadn't. Of course they couldn't find anything definitive because they outright excluded the real source - the lab. That is dishonest manipulation which in particular killed the NIH scientific credibility.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    You're weaseling around the fact that Fauci used the actual regulatory definition of GoF, under which the WIV did not qualify as GoF. I can understand why this irks people, but I can also understand why someone as habitually precise as a virologist would use the statutory definition of a given term of art in sworn Congressional testimony. If you listen to his testimony about that testimony, he goes on to explain that if he were to take the more expansive laymen term of "gain of function," then the other side of the boundary becomes meaningless. E.g. Using e. coli to produce insulin is gain of function. > you can't do this if you don't include the viruses created in Wuhan, and they intentionally haven't. Of course they couldn't find anything definitive because they outright excluded the real source - the lab. No they didn't. You can read the Slack messages and emails. There are literally hundreds of pages of the Proximal Origins authors debating the lab leak hypothesis... obviously. Unless you're talking about these private individuals not somehow parachuting into WIV to conduct forensics themselves? Here are a few excerpts from their private communication: > I am of the view that the natural selection hypothesis is the most likely (specifically the non-bat reservoir). > I disagree with Ron that the passaging hypothesis is evidentially equal to the engineering hypothesis. > Now, the presence of the furin site in pangos would nail it, but the absence (as it appears to be) wouldn't really tell us much. These are the words of people who believe one thing (which may or may not end up being true) and both interrogating it and advocating for it... i.e. "doing science." And again: science doesn't work by every scientist advocating for every theory. That is not remotely realistic from either a practical or a psychological perspective. It works by scientists vigorously advocating for the theories they find most plausible, and other scientists saying that they're stupid and pointing out why they're wrong, which again anyone was free to do!

by ckw 1y ago

sorcerer-mar 1y ago

> It doesn’t mention for example, that those scientists who immediately changed their views concurrently received millions of dollars in new grants Would you have preferred that they have their grant applications cancelled after having published a paper? Let's dig in a little bit to the weasel words here. ======== > Fauci "prompted" authors of the influential Proximal Origin paper Here's the source email that mentions this nefarious "prompting": > There has been a lot of speculation, fear mongering, and conspiracies put forward in this space and we thought that bringing some clarity to this discussion might be of interest to Nature [sic]. Prompted by Jeremy Farrah [sic], Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins, Eddie Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Bob Garry, Ian Lipkin, and myself have been working through much of the (primarily) genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus. What a smoking gun! Err... I guess not... ===== > worked with NIH leadership to “put down” the lab-leak hypothesis This refers to Francis Collins asking Fauci whether there was more that could kill momentum behind the competing theory. It's important to note this momentum was driven primarily by media attention and not growing scientific consensus or any new scientific evidence. That is entirely consistent with someone who does not want what they see as an incorrect explanation to become the public's consensus view (especially when concerned about the possible ramifications of that consensus forming without sufficient evidence). This happened after Fauci had "prompted [a team] to work through much of the (primarily) genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus." Fauci's response: "I would not do anything about this right now." ==== Again: No one prevented any scientist from publishing their competing theories. They may have had a hard time getting taken seriously, they may have not been accepted to Nature, they may have been called a quack: but that is often what it means to go up against the consensus view. That is not censorship. That is the imperfect system of science as it always works in every domain.

trhway 1y ago
You're weaseling around the fact that Fauci outright and knowingly lied to the Congress about funding the gain-of-function research in WIV. That research in particular includfed successful inserting of human ACE2 receptor binding protein into non-human coronavirus with the resulting virus successfully killing off mice engineered with the human cells with ACE2 receptors. That happens to be exactly what COVID is, and that happened right before the official COVID emergence in Wuhan. >to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus. you can't do this if you don't include the viruses created in Wuhan, and they intentionally hadn't. Of course they couldn't find anything definitive because they outright excluded the real source - the lab. That is dishonest manipulation which in particular killed the NIH scientific credibility.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  You're weaseling around the fact that Fauci used the actual regulatory definition of GoF, under which the WIV did not qualify as GoF. I can understand why this irks people, but I can also understand why someone as habitually precise as a virologist would use the statutory definition of a given term of art in sworn Congressional testimony. If you listen to his testimony about that testimony, he goes on to explain that if he were to take the more expansive laymen term of "gain of function," then the other side of the boundary becomes meaningless. E.g. Using e. coli to produce insulin is gain of function. > you can't do this if you don't include the viruses created in Wuhan, and they intentionally haven't. Of course they couldn't find anything definitive because they outright excluded the real source - the lab. No they didn't. You can read the Slack messages and emails. There are literally hundreds of pages of the Proximal Origins authors debating the lab leak hypothesis... obviously. Unless you're talking about these private individuals not somehow parachuting into WIV to conduct forensics themselves? Here are a few excerpts from their private communication: > I am of the view that the natural selection hypothesis is the most likely (specifically the non-bat reservoir). > I disagree with Ron that the passaging hypothesis is evidentially equal to the engineering hypothesis. > Now, the presence of the furin site in pangos would nail it, but the absence (as it appears to be) wouldn't really tell us much. These are the words of people who believe one thing (which may or may not end up being true) and both interrogating it and advocating for it... i.e. "doing science." And again: science doesn't work by every scientist advocating for every theory. That is not remotely realistic from either a practical or a psychological perspective. It works by scientists vigorously advocating for the theories they find most plausible, and other scientists saying that they're stupid and pointing out why they're wrong, which again anyone was free to do!