Mediaboss Marketing

A decadelong debate over pandemic preparedness that has divided some of the worlds leading biologists into opposing camps, for and against so-called gain-of-function research in which deadly pathogens that could cause pandemics are artificially enhanced for study in the lab has all but ground to a halt in the past week, thanks to Sen. Rand Paul.

Thats because the Republican senator from Kentucky politicized the argument last week, by cherry-picking expert opinions from critics of the research who call it too risky to pursue, to publicly accuse Dr. Anthony Fauci of lying to Congress, when he said that his National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases had never funded gain-of-function studies at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

Pauls made-for-television broadside against Fauci thrilled Fox News hosts and colleagues like Rep. Jim Jordan, the Ohio Republican who has also pushed the debunked conspiracy theory that research financed by Faucis agency, which some experts describe as gain-of-function, could have led to the development of SARS-CoV-2, the deadly coronavirus that causes the disease Covid-19, in the Wuhan lab. Fauci rejected Pauls claim that research carried out in Wuhan before 2017 with some support from the NIAID met the definition of gain-of-function and pointedly explained that it was impossible to make SARS-CoV-2 from the coronavirus used in that study.

Almost as soon as the heated exchange concluded, the senators staff uploaded a truncated version of the video on his YouTube channel under the headline, Dr. Fauci Caught Lying about NIH Funding in Wuhan.

That video was edited by Pauls staff so that it ends before Fauci responded to the senators harangue by saying, I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating, senator, because if you look at the viruses that were used in the experiments it is molecularly impossible to result in SARS-CoV-2.

On social networks, Republican operatives unconcerned with the facts like Richard Grenell, the Twitter troll who served as Donald Trumps director of national intelligence for three months cheered on Pauls attack.

But Pauls false claim that Faucis supposed support for gain-of-function studies gave him responsibility for 4 million people dying around the world from a pandemic, and the ensuing frenzy in the conservative media, also caused some previously outspoken biologists who have made the case against such experiments to fall silent.

In the wake of Pauls attack on Fauci, several prominent scientists who question the wisdom and safety of gain-of-function experiments in which biologists deliberately create pandemic-causing pathogens in the lab in order to better prepare to combat them should they evolve in nature refused to speak to me on the record. One after another, they said Pauls patently false claim that Fauci was to blame for the pandemic, and his selective outrage at gain-of-function research only when conducted in China, made it all but impossible for them to say anything about the pre-pandemic experiments in Wuhan without being vilified by partisans.

One biologist who supports such research told me that he would have liked the opportunity to correct what he called misinformation about the experiments, but had been worn down by death threats.

To recap, at a hearing in May, Paul first accused Fauci of having supported gain-of-function research in Wuhan, which the senator, who is also a doctor, misleadingly defined as experimenting to enhance the coronaviruss ability to infect humans. In fact, the coronavirus that researchers experimented on between 2014 and 2017 at the Wuhan Institute, with some financial support from the NIAID, was from a strain found in bats that is not closely enough related to SARS-CoV-2 to have been used to fabricate the virus that causes Covid-19 in a lab.

Fauci also insisted that his agency, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, had never funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

When Fauci returned to the senate committee last week, Paul confronted him with the words of Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University and a longtime critic of gain-of-function studies, who told the conservative magazine National Review that Faucis testimony in May was demonstrably false, since, in Ebrights opinion, the experiments at the Wuhan Institute, indirectly funded by the NIAID as part of a project to head off a pandemic, were unequivocally gain-of-function in nature.

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, used a visual aid to accuse Dr. Anthony Fauci of lying to Congress during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing on July 20, 2021.

Photo: Stefani Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images

Fauci insisted that the biologist Paul cited was simply wrong, saying experts at the National Institutes of Health had evaluated the Wuhan project and concluded that the experiments there did not meet the criteria for gain-of-function research used by the United States government.

The exchange between Paul and Fauci got even more heated when the senator seemed to imply that this research funded by Faucis agency could have led to the development of SARS-CoV-2, the deadly coronavirus that causes Covid-19, in the Wuhan lab.

As Fauci correctly noted, that speculation was wildly misleading, since it was molecularly impossible for the type of coronavirus used in the pre-2017 experiments to have been manipulated in the lab to create SARS-CoV-2.

On that point, even some of the most outspoken critics of gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens agree with Fauci. Kevin Esvelt, an MIT biologist who told PolitiFact in May that the experiments conducted in the Wuhan study should be considered gain-of-function also emphasized that those experiments definitely did NOT lead to the creation of SARS-CoV-2.

(Esvelt, who worries that viruses developed through gain-of-function experiments in a lab could one day be used as weapons, told The Open Mind on PBS in March that whether the virus that caused the Covid-19 pandemic came from an animal or came from a lab, it was not designed to be a weapon because anyone good enough to make this thing could make a more devastating weapon.)

Paul was also rebuked in May by Marc Lipsitch, a microbiologist and professor of epidemiology at Harvard University who brought together hundreds of scientists and experts in law and ethics in 2014 to call for a moratorium on gain-of-function experiments that could create highly transmissible, novel strains of dangerous viruses in laboratories.

Lipsitch wrote in a Twitter thread that in his attack on Fauci in May, Paul had FALSELY claimed that the working group Lipsitch assembled had characterized work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology as gain-of-function. While he and many members of the working group support proper investigation of SARS-CoV-2 origins including the lab leak hypothesis and continue to oppose many forms of GOF research, he added, it is just fabrication to say we have made any statement as a group about work in Wuhan.

Fauci did not get a chance to explain during the hearing what the scientific basis was for the determination by NIAID biologists that the experiments conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, described in a paper published in 2017, were not subject to a temporary pause on the funding of gain-of-function research imposed during the Obama administration in 2014, which was lifted in 2017 after Trump became president.

But in a statement provided to The Intercept on Monday, NIAID explained the reasoning behind its review of the experiments conducted at the Wuhan Institute on behalf of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit in New York that works with researchers in China to study viruses that have the potential to jump from bats to humans. The agency wrote that its scientists had concluded the pre-2017 experiments in Wuhan were not barred by the temporary pause on gain-of-function research, because they were not reasonably expected to increase transmissibility or virulence of these viruses in humans.

Under the grant, EcoHealth Alliance proposed research to create chimeric viruses by placing a small portion of newly identified, evolutionarily distant, bat coronaviruses into another well characterized bat coronavirus that has never been demonstrated to infect humans called WIV1, NIAID wrote. The purpose of this work was to examine whether the newly discovered viruses were able to use the human ACE2 receptor like WIV1 and other SARS-related coronaviruses already do. In the context of these experiments, this well-characterized bat coronavirus would be considered the parental strain against which the function of the new chimeric viruses would be assessed. With this comparison, the newly created chimeric viruses did not gain any function relative to the parental strain; the chimeric viruses did not replicate in cell culture any better than the parental WIV1. In addition, research that had been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals demonstrated that viruses similar to those proposed under the grant had reduced pathogenicity as compared to the parental viruses. For these reasons, it was not reasonably anticipated that the viruses involved in research under the grant would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route, and therefore did not meet the criteria for gain-of-function research described in the research funding pause.

See more here:
Rand Paul's Attack on Fauci Chills Scientific Debate Over Gain-of-Function Research - The Intercept

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has long been one of the biggest champions of individual rights in Congress, and his reinduction of theDefense of Environment and Property Act further solidifies that status. According to a statement from Pauls office, the legislation restores common sense to federal water policy by redefining navigable waters, excluding ephemeral or intermittent streams from federal jurisdiction, and restraining the power the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers hold over American landowners.

Essentially, hes hoping to get government off the backs of farmers and landowners.

Previous iterations of this bill have been brought before lawmakers, namely in 2019, 2015, and 2012. Democrats and environmental groups such as The Wildlife Society have traditionally pushed back against this kind of legislation.

The Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2021:

While some would have us believe we can only protect the environment by giving the federal government more control over Americans lives, my bill shows we can act while still respecting Americans private property rights and the Constitutions limits on federal power, said Paul. Kentuckys farmers and coal industry suffered when the Obama administration implemented its burdensome WOTUS rule. Though the Trump administration replaced that rule, we know the new Biden administration will certainly try to return us to an unworkable scenario again. Thats why its now more important than ever to make an actual change to the law to fix the problem, and protect our land and invaluable industries.

U.S. Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC) plans to introduce companion legislation in the U.S. House. The Senate version of the bill is cosponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Im proud to support this legislation by Senator Rand Paul that ensures no bureaucrat in Washington can dictate what our farm families, small businesses, local governments, and citizens can do on their property after a significant rainfall. This bill solidifies the clarity provided by the Trump Administrations Navigable Waters Protection Rule and prevents the EPA from reimposing overly burdensome and unnecessary regulations that would negatively impact our farm families, job creators and communities, Rouzer said.

You can read the Defense of Environment and Property Act in its entirety here.

Sponsored Content on AGDaily

Visit link:
Rand Pauls new bill would give more property freedom to farmers - AGDAILY

American citizens have been bullied, cajoled and even bribed to get the COVID-19 vaccine and almost made to believe we were going to face the wrath of God if we did not do so.

And now we have the Joe Biden administration dumping hordes of immigrants here illegally into our cities on unsuspecting American citizens.

Have these people been tested for COVID-19? Will they be forced to wear masks and social distance? Have they been vaccinated? I will take a wild guess and say no.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is trying to find out where this virus originated because it is important to understand this virus if we truly have a chance of fighting it successfully. And all the other side wants to do is call him a liar and insult him. Why don't they answer the questions? What are they afraid of? These same people dared to call President Donald Trump a liar. He doesn't hold a candle to this bunch.

The Democrats are always preaching about transparency. How about they practice what they preach?

CYNTHIA BROWN

retired retail merchandiser

Walker

Read the original here:
Letters: Rand Paul seeks virus answers and is vilified by liberal Democrats - The Advocate

In 2011, The Washington Post published an opinion piece titled A flu virus risk worth taking by Anthony S. Fauci, Gary J. Nabel and Francis S. Collins. Dr. Fauci, along with the other scientists, stated that important information and insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus in the laboratory and safeguarding against the potential accidental release or deliberate misuse of laboratory pathogens is imperative. Since the Wuhan Institute of Virology is only a 40-minute drive from the Huanan wet market where the first cluster of infections emerged in Wuhan according to the BBC, can anyone be certain that proper safeguards were implemented?

In regards to gain-of-function experiments, National Review reports that in 2012, Fauci believed the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. Does anyone still believe such research is beneficial, considering the millions whove perished from a virus that might have accidentally escaped from a facility in Wuhan?

Microbiologist David Relman, molecular biologist Alina Chan, virologist Danielle Anderson and other experts have expressed the viewpoint that COVID-19 could have emanated from gain-of-function research or other controversial experiments and possibly leaked from a laboratory. Now that US Sen. Rand Paul sent a criminal referral to the US Department of Justice accusing Fauci of lying about gain-of-function research funding, how long before other Republicans join the Kentucky senator in questioning the accuracy of Faucis testimony?

In addition, how long before Democrats alter their political strategy from opposing Trump at all costs to being tougher on China before the 2022 midterms?

Fauci, despite being championed as paragon of virtue, doesnt fit the eventual shift in Democratic Party policy toward China. Polls show most Americans support a stronger foreign policy stance on China and US President Joe Biden took aim at the country with tough talk during his first speech to Congress. Biden recently approved a US Navy destroyer to sail through the Taiwan Strait and Democrats have joined with Republicans on anti-Beijing legislation.

cnxps.cmd.push(function () { cnxps({ playerId: '36af7c51-0caf-4741-9824-2c941fc6c17b' }).render('4c4d856e0e6f4e3d808bbc1715e132f6'); });

Dr. Fauci could be telling the truth during testimony, and Rand Paul could be wrong, however theres not a person on the planet who can guarantee that the Chinese government, or media, would tell the truth about a possible mishap, or accident.

From Andrew Cuomo to Michael Avenatti, Democrats have championed media darlings who served as a foil to former president Trump, only to jettison these individuals once more information about their past, or other controversies resulted in a fall from grace. Furthermore, Democrats quickly abandon lofty ideals (for political expediency) when women like Tara Reid accuse Biden of sexual assault, or Hunter Bidens emails show he used the n-word and introduced his father to shady business associates, so its not a stretch to imagine liberal politicians evoking Trumps rhetoric towards China, without being accused of racism or xenophobia. Fauci doesnt fit the more bellicose stance against China that Democrats will likely evoke before 2022, despite being hailed as a stoic opponent of Trumps handling of the pandemic.

Faucis political utility might be approaching an expiration date and pressure to be tougher on China might force Biden and Democrats to jettison Americas most revered COVID-19 expert. As Josh Rogan of The Washington Post explained on Twitter, @RandPaul was right and Fauci was wrong since funding went to gain-of-function research, just not experiments that met the definition of the NIH. With more revelations of American taxpayer funding (that began during the Obama administration) and Faucis role in this funding, fickle Democrats and journalists will likely distance themselves from a revered authority, especially since the 2022 midterms are around the corner.

The writer is an author, columnist, and journalist published in The Hill, The Huffington Post, The Daily Caller, The Jerusalem Post, and other publications.

See original here:
Democrats will turn on Fauci before 2022 - opinion - The Jerusalem Post

Dr. Anthony Fauci was back on Capitol Hill this morning, appearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which meant one inevitable thing: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) would pick a fight he'd inevitably lose.

Right on cue, that's what happened.

Paul grilled Fauci about an NIH funded study that he says qualifies as gain-of-function research, the process of altering a pathogen to make it more transmissible in order to better predict emerging diseases. Fauci previously denied in previous Senate testimony that the NIH has directly funded the research at a lab in Wuhan, China that has come under intense scrutiny as a possible source of the virus.

The Kentucky Republican, whose background as an ophthalmologist leads him to claim expertise on scientific matters, ultimately suggested Fauci lied under oath. The comments were not well received.

Fauci, who oversees several NIH research programs as director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, replied, "I have not lied before Congress.... If anyone is lying here senator, it is you."

Fauci added that the study Paul was referring to does not constitute gain-of-function research. "Sen. Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly, and I would like to say that officially," the immunologist explained. For emphasis, he repeated, "You do not know what you are talking about."

If this sounds familiar, it's because this morning's back and forth was the latest in a series. Circling back to our earlier coverage, Rand Paul keeps doing this, apparently under the impression that there's some value to the pointless exercises.

Round 1: In May 2020, Paul lectured Fauci about "people on the other side who are saying there's not going to be a surge" in coronavirus cases, so "we can safely open the economy." The second of multiple infection spikes soon followed.

Round 2: In June 2020, Paul complained that Fauci's public-health assessments were downers --"All I hear is, 'We can't do this', 'We can't do that'" -- and the crisis would ease with more upbeat rhetoric. "We just need more optimism," the Republican declared.

Round 3: In September 2020, in a tense back and forth, Paul tried to convince Fauci that New York had already reached herd immunity, which was amazingly foolish, even for him.

Round 4: In March 2021, the senator complained bitterly about public health experts recommending mask-wearing, including for those who've already been infected, calling it "theater." Fauci responded by offering a lesson on variants and evidence.

Round 5: In May 2021, after Paul peddled a theory pushed on Fox News the night before, Fauci explained that NIH was not complicit in funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

Round 6 was this morning.

The overarching problem appears to be relatively straightforward: the former ophthalmologist genuinely seems to believe that he has unique and valuable insights, which frees him to reject the assessments of actual experts.

It was about a year ago when Rand Paul told reporters that COVID mitigation efforts in New York were not especially effective in saving lives -- "I think New York would have lost about the same amount of people whether they did anything or not," he said -- before arguing that the crisis has been "relatively benign" outside of "New England." (The senator isn't great at geography, either.)

In the months that followed, the virus claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Is it any wonder that Anthony Fauci seems exasperated with Rand Paul?

Read more:
Fauci to Rand Paul: 'You do not know what you are talking about'