Fauci was warned that COVID-19 may have been ‘engineered,’ emails show

[whatbogsends]

Fauci would have been negligent if he rushed to that conclusion based on a preliminary email. He would have caused widespread conspiracies if he had gone public with this without doing further due dilligence.

His email history discovered from the FIOA show that he rushed to change the narrative after receiving Kristian Anderson's email.

 

[rjs330]

His email history discovered from the FIOA show that he rushed to change the narrative after receiving Kristian Anderson's email.

Some people are really good at denying reality. Defend to the end no matter what facts or evidence is presented to them.

 

[Pommer]

Some people are really good at denying reality. Defend to the end no matter what facts or evidence is presented to them.

Dr Anderson: (via Newsweek):
“Following the publication of the Fauci emails, Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at University of Colorado Boulder, asked Andersen on Twitter to explain what ‘all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory’ means in layman's terms.

Andersen replied: ‘it specifically means we thought—on preliminary look—that the virus could have been engineered and/or manipulated. Turns out the data suggest otherwise—which is the conclusion of our paper.’”

We should check to make sure that it wasn’t engineered!

And it turns out that it wasn’t.

Science in action!

 

[stevil]

His email history discovered from the FIOA show that he rushed to change the narrative after receiving Kristian Anderson's email.

So, do you have a rebuttle on what pommer posted in post 183, or are you now accepting of Fauci's position?

i.e. Do you think Fauci should have vetted and verified information before making it public, and once the verification shows that the initial information was wrong, do you think Fauci should have ignored that initial information or just gone ahead and made it public anyway (even though it was proven to be incorrect)?

 

[whatbogsends]

So, do you have a rebuttle on what pommer posted in post 183, or are you now accepting of Fauci's position?

i.e. Do you think Fauci should have vetted and verified information before making it public, and once the verification shows that the initial information was wrong, do you think Fauci should have ignored that initial information or just gone ahead and made it public anyway (even though it was proven to be incorrect)?

I already responded to the claims in post #183 with post #180.

Here's post 183:

Dr Anderson: (via Newsweek):
“Following the publication of the Fauci emails, Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at University of Colorado Boulder, asked Andersen on Twitter to explain what ‘all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory’ means in layman's terms.

Andersen replied: ‘it specifically means we thought—on preliminary look—that the virus could have been engineered and/or manipulated. Turns out the data suggest otherwise—which is the conclusion of our paper.’”

We should check to make sure that it wasn’t engineered!

And it turns out that it wasn’t.

Science in action!

I'll rehash without the links (which are in post #180):

Anderson sent an email to Fauci on Jan 31, 2020 saying he thought, per his initial inspection, that the virus looked possibly engineered. He noted in that email that it wasn't merely his assessment, but the assessment of him and other scientists.

From the email:
I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.

4 scientists all agreed that it looked engineered, not just Anderson.

A phone call was held by Fauci the next day in which Fauci was the only US government representative on Feb 1, 2020, with international scientists including Anderson.

On Feb 4, 2020 (4 days after emailing the head of the NIH saying he thought the virus possibly engineered) Anderson sent a note to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine calling something he had said just 4 days prior "crackpot theories".

Moreover, the primary article always cited as the definitive "it came from nature" was written by several people (published on March 17) on that call that happened on Feb 1, including Anderson. Anderson sent Fauci an email on March 6 offering Fauci an opportunity to edit that article before publication.

There was a clear attempt to suppress any evidence of lab leak, and change the narrative to "lab leak is conspiracy theory" (or "crackpot theory" as Anderson claimed).

I know you don't like giving your opinion, but i welcome you and Pommer to provide a reasonable explanation as to why Anderson not only reversed his position in those 4 days, but went as far as calling his previous position "crackpot"? Why on earth would you call what you and 3 other scientists in the related field thought was probable 4 days earlier "crackpot", except to change the narrative.

 

[KCfromNC]

There was a clear attempt to suppress any evidence of lab leak, and change the narrative to "lab leak is conspiracy theory" (or "crackpot theory" as Anderson claimed).

Why are you talking about a lab leak here, given the rest of the post is about investigations into whether or not the virus appeared natural or engineered? Seems like an attempt at moving the goal posts.

 

[whatbogsends]

Why are you talking about a lab leak here, given the rest of the post is about investigations into whether or not the virus appeared natural or engineered? Seems like an attempt at moving the goal posts.

The topics are adjacent. There was a clear effort to create a narrative in which a) it was natural origin and b) there was no lab leak were unquestioned facts. Both of those statements have been shown to be, at best, wholly unproven.

Of course, as usual, you sidestepped the thrust of the post.

Since no one has taken me up on the offer, maybe you can provide a reasonable explanation as to why Anderson not only reversed his position (which was shared by 3 other scientists in the field and he felt strongly enough about it to send it to the head of the NIH) in those 4 days, but went as far as calling his previous position "crackpot"?

 

[hedrick]

The topics are adjacent. There was a clear effort to create a narrative in which a) it was natural origin and b) there was no lab leak were unquestioned facts. Both of those statements have been shown to be, at best, wholly unproven.

Of course, as usual, you sidestepped the thrust of the post.

Since no one has taken me up on the offer, maybe you can provide a reasonable explanation as to why Anderson not only reversed his position (which was shared by 3 other scientists in the field and he felt strongly enough about it to send it to the head of the NIH) in those 4 days, but went as far as calling his previous position "crackpot"?

I can’t comment on Anderson’s change, but the crackpot label has been used only for the idea that it was created in a lab. While there’s no clear evidence, it’s plausible that it was being studied in the lab and escaped. Indeed it could even have spread both naturally and from the lab. There’s no reason it has to be just one.

 

[whatbogsends]

I can’t comment on Anderson’s change, but the crackpot label has been used only for the idea that it was created in a lab. While there’s no clear evidence, it’s plausible that it was being studied in the lab and escaped. Indeed it could even have spread both naturally and from the lab. There’s no reason it has to be just one.

That it was created in a lab was something he and 3 other scientists believed themselves 4 days prior to calling it "crackpot"! He felt confident enough in their assessment that he emailed the head of the NIH about it.

He's effectively calling himself and his fellow scientists "crackpots" for what they believed 4 days prior.

No one has offered an even plausible scenario in which what you (and your fellow researchers) believe 4 days ago based on examination of the evidence could reasonably be labeled "crackpot".

 

[hedrick]

Hers a very detailed article covering the gain of function question. The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org.

As a non biologist it appears that claims that it is are using a broad definition of gain of function. They seem to be saying that in looking at virus to see whether they are likely to mutate, some might in fact mutate during the research. The NIH had a general policy against GoF work, and this grant fell under that policy, but critics seem to feel that the NIH didn’t go far enough in implementing its ban.

My conclusions
* Fauci was correct that NIH didn’t fund gain of function work at Wuhan, using the normal NIH definition of gain of function.
* Some scientists don’t think the NIHs definition was broad enough, and thus think a grant involving Wuhan should have been considered to violate the prohibition against gain of function work.
* The grant involved was on a different virus, and could not have led to Covid.

i don’t think it’s fair to accuse Fauci of lying because some scientists disagree with NIH policy.

 

[whatbogsends]

Hers a very detailed article covering the gain of function question. The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org.

Your factcheck article was written in May, before the documents were released in September.

As a non biologist it appears that claims that it is are using a broad definition of gain of function. They seem to be saying that in looking at virus to see whether they are likely to mutate, some might in fact mutate during the research. The NIH had a general policy against GoF work, and this grant fell under that policy, but critics seem to feel that the NIH didn’t go far enough in implementing its ban.

The NIH lifted their ban of gain of function research in 2017.

Issued by
National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Purpose

The purpose of this Guide Notice is to notify applicants that in accordance with the December 2017 issuance of the Department of Health and Human Services "HHS Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens (HHS P3CO Framework),” the National Institutes of Health is removing the funding pause on the provision of new or continuation funding for gain-of-function research projects.

Background
On October 17, 2014, the U.S. Government announced that it would be instituting a funding pause on gain-of-function research projects that could be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the resulting virus has enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility (via the respiratory route) in mammals. During the funding pause, the U.S. Government undertook a deliberative process to assess the potential benefits and risks associated with these types of studies. Completion of the deliberative process resulted in the Department of Health and Human Services issuing the HHS P3CO Framework on December 19, 2017. The HHS P3CO Framework is responsive to and in accordance with the "Recommended Policy Guidance for Departmental Development of Review Mechanisms for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight" issued on January 9, 2017 and supersedes the previous "Framework for Guiding U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Funding Decisions about Research Proposals with the Potential for Generating Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses that are Transmissible among Mammals by Respiratory Droplets.”

NOT-OD-17-071: Notice Announcing the Removal of the Funding Pause for Gain-of-Function Research Projects (nih.gov)

My conclusions
* Fauci was correct that NIH didn’t fund gain of function work at Wuhan, using the normal NIH definition of gain of function.
* Some scientists don’t think the NIHs definition was broad enough, and thus think a grant involving Wuhan should have been considered to violate the prohibition against gain of function work.
* The grant involved was on a different virus, and could not have led to Covid.

i don’t think it’s fair to accuse Fauci of lying because some scientists disagree with NIH policy.

Your conclusions appears driven by political expediency rather than any sort of assessment of the facts to-date.

And you, nor any of the other Fauci apoligists, still have not even attempted to present a plausible explanation for Anderson's 180.

 

[hedrick]

Your factcheck article was written in May, before the documents were released in September.



The NIH lifted their ban of gain of function research in 2017.

Issued by
National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Purpose

The purpose of this Guide Notice is to notify applicants that in accordance with the December 2017 issuance of the Department of Health and Human Services "HHS Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens (HHS P3CO Framework),” the National Institutes of Health is removing the funding pause on the provision of new or continuation funding for gain-of-function research projects.

Background
On October 17, 2014, the U.S. Government announced that it would be instituting a funding pause on gain-of-function research projects that could be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the resulting virus has enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility (via the respiratory route) in mammals. During the funding pause, the U.S. Government undertook a deliberative process to assess the potential benefits and risks associated with these types of studies. Completion of the deliberative process resulted in the Department of Health and Human Services issuing the HHS P3CO Framework on December 19, 2017. The HHS P3CO Framework is responsive to and in accordance with the "Recommended Policy Guidance for Departmental Development of Review Mechanisms for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight" issued on January 9, 2017 and supersedes the previous "Framework for Guiding U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Funding Decisions about Research Proposals with the Potential for Generating Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses that are Transmissible among Mammals by Respiratory Droplets.”

NOT-OD-17-071: Notice Announcing the Removal of the Funding Pause for Gain-of-Function Research Projects (nih.gov)




Your conclusions appears driven by political expediency rather than any sort of assessment of the facts to-date.

And you, nor any of the other Fauci apoligists, still have not even attempted to present a plausible explanation for Anderson's 180.

The fact check was updated in July. The lifting of the pause does not affect the fact that the NIH says that this grant was not for gain of function work. The disagreements are over the definition of gain of function, but Fauci statement reflects the NIH.

 

[hedrick]

Have you looked at the timeline with Kristian Anderson's email to Fauci and his subsequent public statement?

It was Jan. 31, 2020, and a leading infectious disease expert, Kristian Andersen, had been examining the genetic characteristics of the newly emerging SARS-CoV virus.

“Some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen wrote in an email to Dr. Anthony Fauci, noting that he and other scientists “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.”

But, he added, “we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.”
...
Change they did. Just four days later, Andersen gave feedback in advance of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine letter that was referenced in the prestigious Lancet medical journal to argue against the idea that the virus had been engineered and brand it a conspiracy theory.

In his email, Andersen called the ideas that the virus was engineered “crackpot theories,” writing, “engineering can mean many things and could be done for basic research or nefarious reasons, but the data conclusively show that neither was done.”

Fauci’s emails don’t prove a Wuhan conspiracy, but raise further questions

4 days after emailing the director of the NIH saying that he believed the virus was engineered, not only did he reverse his position, but he described his previous position "crackpot theories". He had met with Fauci in the interim between his initial "it looks engineered" and his subsequent "it's a crackpot theory" 4 days later.

4 days after his email to Fauci he not only did an about face, but called his previous theory "crackpot". He claims new evidence came to light. Can you give a plausible explanation why a person would call something he thought 4 days prior a "crackpot theory"?

His post hoc explanation doesn't explain his sudden condemnation of his previous opinion.

I don’t think you can blame Fauci for Anderson’s wording. The real point is that after fuller examination he decided his original suspicions were wrong. I conjecture, with no real evidence, that his crackpot statement was reflecting the larger political landscape, and that he wasn’t accusing himself of being a crackpot.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

So Trump knew that Fauci was a lying threat to the safety of the United States and chose to wait until after an election to remove this public health menace? And then kept him on after the steal?

I will be asking Trump some questions after he comes back in August.

Biden kept Fauci on and has parroted his every word.

 

[whatbogsends]

The fact check was updated in July. The lifting of the pause does not affect the fact that the NIH says that this grant was not for gain of function work. The disagreements are over the definition of gain of function, but Fauci statement reflects the NIH.

And the documents obtained by the FOIA act were released in September.

And you still haven't even attempted to answer the question. You attempted to address his change of position with a non-substantive sidestep without addressing the question that why, in such short time, would he call his (and his fellow scientists) previous position "crackpot".

 

[whatbogsends]

I don’t think you can blame Fauci for Anderson’s wording.

No, i blame Anderson for his wording. I also note, that in the hours after Fauci received Anderson's emails, he was very busy changing the narrative, and the next day called a phone meeting with Anderson in which no other US officials were present. Several people on that call were the ones who shortly thereafter, penned the article in Nature saying that it was definitely natural origin (another of which was one of the scientists who had originally agreed with Anderson that it looked "inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory").

The real point is that after fuller examination he decided his original suspicions were wrong. I conjecture, with no real evidence, that his crackpot statement was reflecting the larger political landscape, and that he wasn’t accusing himself of being a crackpot.

Your conjecture is patently absurd. He and several other scientists thought it was likely engineered 4 days prior. Calling what they assessed after their initial research "crackpot" isn't reflective of a simple change of position, it's reflective of trying to create a narrative and shut down discourse.

 

[hedrick]

Anderson explained in the NYTimes article why he changed his mind

“The features in SARS-CoV-2 that initially suggested possible engineering were identified in related coronaviruses, meaning that features that initially looked unusual to us weren’t.”

No political motivations are required. Why he suddenly started calling it conspiracy theory you’ll have to ask him.

 

[hedrick]

Scientists change their mind all the time, when more evidence turns up or the situation changes. In politically charged situations this seems to result in ugly accusations.

I would argue that one of Trumps problems was an unwillingness to change. Most of what he said on Covid he surely heard from someone he trusted. But the seriousness changed, and hydroxychloroquine was an interesting suggestion that didn’t pan out (and should not have been suggested to a national audience without further study).

Biden has also just suggested something that I’m sure he heard from advisors but hadn’t been fully checked out (booster shots). I’m willing to bet he’ll follow the FDA recommendation, though, even if it means changing his proposal. We’ll see. (My bet is a compromise. Booster shots for those over 60 or something. There does seem to be some grounds for that, even though the evidence for decline in effectiveness isn’t as clear as it once appeared.)

 

[whatbogsends]

Anderson explained in the NYTimes article why he changed his mind

“The features in SARS-CoV-2 that initially suggested possible engineering were identified in related coronaviruses, meaning that features that initially looked unusual to us weren’t.”

No political motivations are required. Why he suddenly started calling it conspiracy theory you’ll have to ask him.

His explanation is lacking, especially in terms of the timing and zeal of his turnabout. The investigative juggernaut the New York Times didn't even think to ask him why his change was sudden and his language so strong.

I believe Andersen was asked to testify to the Senate subcommittee related to this and declined.

All of the emails regarding the Feb 1, 2020 call that Fauci and Andersen were on were requested in an FOIA request. However, every single word of every single email was redacted, including who sent what when.

 

[whatbogsends]

Scientists change their mind all the time, when more evidence turns up or the situation changes. In politically charged situations this seems to result in ugly accusations.

I would argue that one of Trumps problems was an unwillingness to change. Most of what he said on Covid he surely heard from someone he trusted. But the seriousness changed, and hydroxychloroquine was an interesting suggestion that didn’t pan out (and should not have been suggested to a national audience without further study).

Biden has also just suggested something that I’m sure he heard from advisors but hadn’t been fully checked out (booster shots). I’m willing to bet he’ll follow the FDA recommendation, though, even if it means changing his proposal. We’ll see. (My bet is a compromise. Booster shots for those over 60 or something. There does seem to be some grounds for that, even though the evidence for decline in effectiveness isn’t as clear as it once appeared.)

You realize 2 high ranking officials ( the director and deputy director of the Office of Vaccines Research & Review (OVRR) )resigned, specifically citing CDC overstep and lack of FDA autonomy regarding boosters.

FDA recommendation is compromised. Those two senior officals (with over 40 combined years at the FDA) who were against it resigned because they were being ignored.


Marion Gruber, director of the Office of Vaccines Research & Review (OVRR), and Phil Krause, OVRR deputy director, will leave the FDA at the end of October and in November, respectively. Gruber has been at the FDA for 32 years and Krause has worked at the agency for more than a decade.
...
The two officials are leaving the FDA in part because they are frustrated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) involvement in the vaccine approval process, as well as with White House pressure to move forward with booster vaccines for COVID-19 without FDA’s approval, a former top FDA official told Endpoints.

Gruber and Krause reportedly believed the CDC and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) have been too heavily involved with decisions on COVID-19 vaccines that should be left to the FDA.

Two Top Vaccine Officials Resign From FDA Amid Political Pressure From Biden Administration (msn.com)


On Tuesday, two top FDA vaccine regulators resigned — a decision that one former official said was rooted in anger over the agency’s lack of autonomy in the booster planning so far. A current health official said the pair, Marion Gruber and Philip Krause, left over differences with FDA’s top vaccine official Peter Marks. Now the agency is facing a potential mutiny among its staff and outside vaccine advisers, several of whom feel cut out of key decisions and who view the plan to offer boosters to all adults as premature and unnecessary.
...
It was “the administration's booster plan; it wasn't the FDA's booster plan,” said Paul Offit, a University of Pennsylvania infectious disease expert who sits on FDA’s vaccine advisory committee. “The administration has kind of backed themselves up against the wall a little bit here.”
...
Biden added to the confusion and controversy last weekend when he suggested that boosters could be administered just five months after the initial regimen, rather than the eight his administration had just proposed. Those remarks, coming after a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, fueled worries that an administration that had pledged to "follow the science" was letting politics dictate outcomes.

But others familiar with the administration's thinking said that Biden and his top health aides, including Zients and chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci, had to lay the groundwork for booster shots so the public would be ready for what they saw as the unavoidable reality of additional vaccinations.

Biden's top-down booster plan sparks anger at FDA - POLITICO