We now know the first three people to get COVID worked in the Wuhan lab: Will the US government act?

Do you honestly believe that research is not carried out in the US as well?

 

People really should read the links instead of click bait titles and journalist commentary

 

I have no idea. I do know that it is banned. You think Fauci paid the Chinese lab to do the work because it was cheaper than doing it at a U.S. lab?

 

The grant was to a US lab, EcoHealth Alliance. The WIV had a subcontract for collaboration on this grant. This is normal NIH operating procedure. The NIH cannot fund foreign principal investigators abroad, with the exception of Israel. The NIH funds about 11,000 grants per year, it has 27 institutes, so my guess is that the NIAID funds several hundred grants per year. With a funding line of 10%, there are probably more than 5000 applications per year. Do you think Fauci, the previous director of the NIAID, reads all of them? No, the funding decisions are mostly made at a lower level, and the director signs off. The institute director is more involved in the general direction and the strategy of the institute. If the institute director would personally read and evaluate ALL proposals evaluated by their institute, they would get nothing else done. In fact, it is humanely impossible to evaluate 1000s of grants a year by one person.

Why do I know this stuff? Because my lab has received federal funding for my whole academic career and I have served on many peer grant review panels. The section heads and directors want to fund the best research. They trust the peer review panels recommend what research should or should not be funded. While my lab is not involved in infectious diseases, I am sure that review panels take considerations like biosafety levels etc into consideration. Of course, this is much harder to control at a foreign institution, like the WIV. However, for this grant there was a scientific reason for collaborating with the WIV, because that's a region where bat coronaviruses are very active (see for example SARS Cov1).

Now, the RW propaganda makes it appear as if Fauci handpicked this research to push his desire to develop a deadly virus. That's just nonsense, but I guess it gets clicks in RW media world, and, therefore, it's propagated. It's sad that you, an otherwise reasonable poster, falls for this propaganda. In fact, I've seen reasonable conservative posters get more extreme on here over the years. It's a testament how well RW propaganda works, and how these outlets make their viewers and listeners addicted to the daily barrage of political garbage that they spew. Tucker is a case in point. 100 million views of his twitter rant. Are you kidding me?

 

I know all of that. It doesn't change the fact that NIH funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Call it money laundering if you like.

 

I don't believe you know any of this. +99% of the population, which isn't involved in academia, doesn't know any of this. What you think you know is the RW story that has been fed to you. Plus, what has money laundering to do with it? That's just pure B$.

 

So people doing gain of function research on coronaviruses in a lab contract COVID-19 first and we are supposed to not see that as evidence? What is this world coming to. If I find a dead junkie in an alley with a needle still in his arm, am I supposed to assume that he died of diabetes just because of the remote possibility it wasn't an overdose?

If you follow the embedded links, you will see that the source is Michael Shellenberger's substack that cites government investigators.

 

Hi, Chrizton.

Will you grant me an agreement that there is a difference between valid, demonstrable proof and a reasonable supposition? If yes, we can proceed.

We have a confusion of words here. On one side there's the statement that the three lab workers were the first three known to contract the COVID virus. On the other side it's that the three were three of the first to contract the disease.

This can be resolved by, say, an official Chinese statement, including dates and test results, that the three were the first to contract the disease. I have not seen such a document to date. Nor have I seen one with equivalent certainty from another source.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

I can't help what you believe. Money laundering is using a third party to make the payments to the Wuhan lab because NIH didn't want to be publicly connected to it.

 

I would like to see this corroborated by a genuine media outlet or scientific organization.

 

The New York Post is the oldest newspaper in the United States. But you can't believe anything it writes because it isn't a pawn of the left.

 

Well if you need an official chinese statement as to anything, you might as well never believe anything related to China. Now, that said, I am not sure anything in the media is that believable any more. For instance, Forbes post an article online that had alleged quotes in it saying the SCOTUS had upheld Biden's student loan program and then deleted it.

I have seen the article but the only thing I captured was the screenshot of the headline:



Of course, the SCOTUS hasn't ruled yet, so if we were to apply your standard to everything, we probably can't believe anything it would seem. I, however, will take Shellenberger at his word. While I don't necessarily agree with his politics or conclusions, I have never known him to be factually wrong about anything he has posted.

 

What was the third party making the payments? EcoHealth? If I have an R01 with a subcontract, if my university administration pays the subcontractor, is this money laundering? Or is it just fulmillment of the contractual obligation? How did the NIH not want to be connected? The grant is in the public NIH database. Everything with this grant went the exact formal way it is supposed to, similar to many other NIH grants that have subcontracts, national or international. You can bet that there are a lot of bean counters (bureaucrats) at the NIH who go by the book, believe me, I have dealt with them.

But, you can keep up with your conspiracy theories on this matter that RW media have taught you, or you could get informed. It's your loss if you decide against the latter. You are a reasonable guy, it's sad to see you succumb to extremist RW media propaganda.

 

the first 3, you 100% sure of that too?

 

Hi again, Chrizton.

We're just a short hop away from a full-blown epistemological discussion. I agree that some sources are more believable than others, by the way.

Regards, stay safe 'n well, 'n thanks for the response.

 

Of course it is. It just isn't illegal money laundering. If something is banned in the U.S. and government uses a third party like the Ecohealth Alliance to make the payments to have that something done elsewhere that is money laundering. The purpose of such a thing is to hide the government's role in that something.

 

The federal government is sure. I can't be sure of anything federal government tells me. Did you find some earlier cases?

 

dynamic american corporate leders, of course, make these kinds of decisions entirely on their own " gut" feelings. who needs the doctors when everyone knows real estate fraudsters are the most qualified to know which research to prioritize

 

Research grant subcontracts are not done to hide government's role in something, they are done to harness the expertise of a third party that the original grantee does not have, but which is instrumental to the success of the project. Of course, when you come from the viewpoint that everything government does is for nefarious reasons, especially when RW pariah Fauci is involved, then I suppose your perspective makes sense. Maybe, I should let the person who has a subcontract on my grant know that we are basically laundering money....

 

Bah! Ecohealth did nothing other than pass the money along to Wuhan. The government could have sent it directly. Fauci is a pariah because he lied to hide his personal involvement in Chinese gain of function activities. And I have never said that everything federal government does is for nefarious reasons. I'm confident that most of what it does is for its own benefit. The gain of function research is just one of countless examples. Or perhaps you can explain how it was in the public interest.

 

no they are not, seems you misread something somewhere

 

Who are not what? It seems you missed something somewhere.

 

you missed it...

 

Apparently so.

 

I'll wait till the NY Post gets a Pulitzer for this story.