Fauci: "Senator Paul, you don't know what you're talking about"

These article helps explain what happened.


***snip***


All of this helps explain what happened last year when President Trump took what seemed to many to be the perfectly reasonable step of ordering a halt to U.S. taxpayer funding of the Communist Chinese research lab in Wuhan that could have been the source of the Covid-19 pandemic.

In April 2020, the Chinese had refused to provide samples, allow an inspection of the Wuhan lab, or otherwise cooperate on steps necessary to help figure out the pandemic and its origins. When Trump got word that the U.S. was sending taxpayer money to the lab and its scientists, he ordered it stopped. Funds were blocked to the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance that was responsible for dispensing some U.S. taxpayer money to the Wuhan lab.

What happened when the funding stopped?

The scientific establishment kicked into action.



***snip***

U.C. Irvine received the NIH grant money to conduct a three-year research project on using genetically engineered herpesviruses to map the human brain. The grant listed Prof. Min-Hua Luo, a group leader at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as one of the "multiple principal investigators" for the project and noted that she and her colleagues at the Wuhan Institute of Virology will play a significant role in the research project. "Prof. Luo and other key investigators in her group at Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences will collaborate with [U.C. Irvine Prof.] Xiangmin Xu and other [multiple principal investigators] in the U.S.," the research grant read.

Luo was listed as a coauthor in both of the academic articles published with the support of the NIH grant.

Goodman said the NIH's opaque funding practices could be concealing even more examples of taxpayer money going toward the Chinese laboratory.
Pseudorabies is a porcine herpesvirus, so we’re not surprised about this funding, considering the fact the the Indians may be right: SARS-CoV-2’s most ancient ancestor is PRRSV, a pig virus, not a bat virus.
 
Name them. Four will do.
- Improving the ability of vaccines to prompt creation of antibodies

- finding better ways of testing theories

- Finding better treatments

- assisting the growth of viruses in culture

There are many more. Articles written for laymen can be found all over the web.

Did you think scientists did not have any benefits in mind when doing this research? Seems like a pretty stupid thing to think.
 
Lol. So pretty much what i just wrote.
Did you go back and read the letter? Are you here to apologize?
Yes, I read the letter, apologize for what? Did Fauci or firm, intentionally manipulate the virus they were investigating to purposely make it more infectious and contagious for humans? Nope, they didn't.... At least not from what I can tell from the letter. Experiments to see how animal viruses would react in humans is not against the NIH rules on gain of function.

Purposely, with intent to making a virus more potent and more infectious is the line the NIH draws on gain of function..... No one in the lab intentionally did that to the virus they were experimenting on....from what I can tell from the letter?
 
- Improving the ability of vaccines to prompt creation of antibodies

- finding better ways of testing theories

- Finding better treatments

- assisting the growth of viruses in culture

There are many more. Articles written for laymen can be found all over the web.

Did you think scientists did not have any benefits in mind when doing this research? Seems like a pretty stupid thing to think.
What is your opinion of this less than one minute video?
 
Yes, I read the letter, apologize for what? Did Fauci or firm, intentionally manipulate the virus they were investigating to purposely make it more infectious and contagious for humans? Nope, they didn't.... At least not from what I can tell from the letter. Experiments to see how animal viruses would react in humans is not against the NIH rules on gain of function.

Purposely, with intent to making a virus more potent and more infectious is the line the NIH draws on gain of function..... No one in the lab intentionally did that to the virus they were experimenting on....from what I can tell from the letter?
From what I gather they gave the mouse a human Ace2 receptor, to see how the virus reacted with it.... They didn't manipulate the virus to make it more infectious or dangerous...?
 
Yes, I read the letter, apologize for what? Did Fauci or firm, intentionally manipulate the virus they were investigating to purposely make it more infectious and contagious for humans? Nope, they didn't.... At least not from what I can tell from the letter. Experiments to see how animal viruses would react in humans is not against the NIH rules on gain of function.

Purposely, with intent to making a virus more potent and more infectious is the line the NIH draws on gain of function..... No one in the lab intentionally did that to the virus they were experimenting on....from what I can tell from the letter?
Extrapolating on any lab work fails to address the source in nature. Fau Chi knows the ebola source in nature is still unknown, too. The perfect commie crime would be releasing the naturally-evolved virus, already made nasty from bat rumps residing in a copper mine.
 
Extrapolating on any lab work fails to address the source in nature. Fau Chi knows the ebola source in nature is still unknown, too. The perfect commie crime would be releasing the naturally-evolved virus, already made nasty from bat rumps residing in a copper mine.
Did they release this virus they were experimenting on???
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top