Thursday morning, during a White House Press Briefing, Fox News Reporter Peter Doocy confronted White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki about the revelation, originally made here at RedState in May and more recently by The Intercept, that the NIH has indeed funded gain-of-function research in the United States and around the world. The investigation, which I conducted after observing Fauci’s statements to Senator Rand Paul during a hearing in May, yielded study after study which showed that not only had the US funded the subject research which Fauci denied funding, but that research had been conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – another thing Fauci vehemently denied.
At the time I wrote the articles I received a lot of interest in the work, largely because the sources used to prove Fauci’s statements as lies, were all NIH studies. That recognition faded with time, only to be complete renewed with the publishing of The Intercept’s article, which confirmed everything which I had written at the time showing that RedState was way ahead of the curve.
The media has done their part to cover for the octogenarian fraud that is Dr. Anthony Fauci, passing on even questioning the man about the lies he spun in a Senate Hearing, choosing rather to slam red states for their alleged poor handling of the surge in COVID-19 cases. This morning when Doocy asked the question, we could have almost predicted the answer from Jen Psaki.
The problem with Psaki’s response is it either highlights her complete and total ignorance on the subject (calling it “COVID 2 strain” is another one), or her willingness to continue to perpetrate a fraud on the American people. To say that the “NIH has never approved any research that would make a coronavirus more dangerous to humans,” is so utterly and completely devoid of anything approaching the truth, that it, in itself, is deserving of Psaki’s resignation.
Developing Story - Trump administration oversaw a RADICAL change to the tech world… one that could unleash a huge wave prosperity… and wealth creation in the near future. Find Out More
The term “gain-of-function” literally means the process by which scientists make viruses more deadly and transmissible. It is the scientific process that helps viruses to “gain functions” which they previously did not have to infect and damage. The entire purpose of conducting gain-of-function research is to be able to “predict” new viral strains that are more deadly and transmissible than their predecessors. If it isn’t the process by making viruses more deadly and transmissible, it isn’t gain-of-function.
The NIH’s own website describes Gain of Function as follows (emphasis added):
The term gain-of-function (GOF) research describes a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent. Some scientists use the term broadly to refer to any such modification. However, not all research described as GOF entails the same level of risk. For example, research that involves the modification of bacteria to allow production of human insulin, or the altering of the genetic program of immune cells in CAR-T cell therapy to treat cancer generally would be considered low risk. The subset of GOF research that is anticipated to enhance the transmissibility and/or virulence of potential pandemic pathogens, which are likely to make them more dangerous to humans, has been the subject of substantial scrutiny and deliberation.Such GOF approaches can sometimes be justified in laboratories with appropriate biosafety and biosecurity controls to help us understand the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, assess the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, and inform public health and preparedness efforts, including surveillance and the development of vaccines and medical countermeasures. This research poses biosafety and biosecurity risks, and these risks must be carefully managed. When supported with NIH funds, this subset of GOF research may only be conducted in laboratories with stringent oversight and appropriate biosafety and biosecurity controlsto help protect researchers from infection and prevent the release of microorganisms into the environment.
Just in case Psaki needs some help finding it, here’s the clip directly from the website:
NIH Gain-of-Function Definition
Not only is viral gain-of-function research inherently about making viruses more dangerous and deadly to humans, but it was also so dangerous that the Obama Administration ordered a pause in all US-funded gain-of-function research in 2014, an order the NIH ignored. The NIH approved the continuance of at least two gain-of-function studies and continued to fund EcoHealth Alliance’s grant which sent money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The first was a study that created SHC014-MA15, a hybrid coronavirus which was, at the time, highly criticized as the creation of “SARS 2.” Dr. Ralph Baric, one of the lead researchers at the University of North Carolina and the “godfather of gain-of-function research” placed the following disclosure in the study to show that they were working counter to the research pause, but only under the direction of the NIH.
GOF Approved by NIH
The second study not only acknowledged the participation of the lead research scientist at the WIV, but also acknowledges not only that the research was conducted under NIAID grants, but that the research went counter to the HHS ordered pause and continued at the direction of the NIH.
Baric WIV1 StudySHC014 GoF Disclosure
Furthermore, yet another study, which was conducted by the Wuhan Institute of Virology states that the funding for those gain-of-function studies came from the NIH/NIAID, through the Wuhan Lab’s director Dr. Shi Zhengli, and EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Daszak. This research was also funded and conducted during the Obama Admin gain-of-function research pause.
NIH Funds Wuhan Institute of Virology and Daszak
Jen Psaki’s statement is a flat-out lie. This isn’t a matter of opinion.
Is gain-of-function the process of making viruses more deadly? Yes.
Did the NIH fund this research through multiple channels? Yes.
Was this research conducted either in part or in whole at the Wuhan Institute of Virology? Yes.
Was the research conducted contrary to an HHS order to pause all gain-of-function research? Yes.
Her statements are not accurate or even a function of the truth. Despite it being crystal clear, don’t expect the MSM to do a darn thing about it.