See 2012 Paper in Which Dr Fauci Argued That Even if it Caused a #LabLeak Global Pandemic, the “Gain-of-function” Research Should Still Have Been Done

0
133

NewsRescue

As the #LabLeak theory of COVID-19 ‘s origins floods mainstream, the Australian this Friday published an article that exposed US head of Allergies and Infectious diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci in a 2012 paper, defending risky lab research at the risk of triggering a lab leak pandemic.

“Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?” he reportedly asked, concluding that “the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks.”

A doctor in medical gloves and mask holding an ampula with vaccine.

“It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky,” he continued, acknowledging that sloppy replications of the experiments remained a “valid concern.” Fauci has famously flip-flopped on the origins of the Chinese virus in recent weeks, claiming on May 11 that he is “not convinced” the Chinese coronavirus developed naturally. COVID-19 has been directly responsible for 3.7 million deaths and indirectly led to more via lockdowns and economic hardships.

Dr.Fauci was arguing against imposing a moratorium on risky lab research. A moratorium was eventually imposed in 2014 but lifted in 2017 as is presented below after the article clip.

We found the single author paper here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/

It is clear that the scientists who conducted the experiments that triggered this debate (23), and who are among those who voluntarily signed onto the moratorium, have conducted their research properly and under the safest and most secure conditions. However, the issue that has been intensely debated is whether knowledge obtained from these experiments could inadvertently affect public health in an adverse way, even in nations multiple time zones away. Putting aside the specter of bioterrorism for the moment, consider this hypothetical scenario: an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario—however remote—should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/

Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally. We cannot expect those who have these concerns to simply take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place. Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/

A moratorium was placed on Gain-of-function research in 2014 but was later lifted  in 2017 during the Trump era, under the directorship of NIH Director Francis S. whose tenure from 2009, Trump had just extended.

“On Dec 19, 2017, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that they would resume funding gain-of-function experiments involving influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS). A moratorium had been in place since October, 2014″